Part II: Why three days? Time for a dope slap?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Some interesting answers came from the original thread on which the following question was posted.

However, Flint seemed uncharacteristic in his response, which made me worry that someone was using his "handle." Likewise, there seemed to be one confirmed instance of someone using Anita's "handle" and posting vulgarity.

This is an important question. The thoughtful answers submitted thus far lead me to believe that it deserves repetition, especially for the benefit of those who only frequent this forum Monday through Friday.

Distilled, the question goes like this:

Is the Federal Government only endorsing three days of preparation for the average citizen of the United States, because:

1. Many people can't afford to prepare for longer than that?

2. It takes three days for emergency assistance to arrive?

OR

3. To admit we should prepare to be self-sustaining (shelter, heat, water, food in Winter) for longer than three days, would be the same thing as announcing to all enemies of the U.S., foreign and domestic, that we're about to become an easy target, and in the national interest, the risks associated with making that kind of announcement are greater than the risks of having an unprepared citizenry?

After many hours of research, I am leaning toward #3.

And you know what? If that's the case, I understand the rationale. It's called "triage" in some circles. The lesser of two evils.

Here's the URL for previous responses:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0014Gq

(Can someone provide a link?)

Go there. Read through. But please post your responses here.

C'mon guys, let's think this through.

There are many, many good people who are involved in community preparedness activities in the United States.

Right now, many of them are becoming increasingly suspicious of the Clinton Administration and by default, all of its appointees. Who can blame them? That's the fall-out of that nasty impeachment business.

At the same time--there are many dedicated people (lots of military folk) who are working on our behalf behind the scenes. They love America as much as we do. They put their lives on the line for us every day, regardless of what they may think of the current power players.

I have a feeling those folks have an understanding of #3.

Your thoughts? Their thoughts?

-- readytoslap (my@dopeyhead.maybe), July 11, 1999

Answers

Good God.

I just rechecked the original thread for responses, and it resembles the "Jerry Springer" show.

Can you guys take a breath for a minute and think?

I've had serious conversations with people in Washington on this issue.

Not a damn chance they will be brought to light if you don't stop your juvenile bickering.

We are in the "end game" guys. Whatever anyone needs to do, needs to be done before September.

Please, be serious, or shut up. Please!

-- readytoslap (my@dopeyhead.maybe), July 11, 1999.


Hi Ready,

The answer is #2. The Feds routinely recommend 3 days of supplies because that's how long it takes *in a normal emergency* for help to arrive.

The US Army is suggesting that their personnel be prepared for 1 month (meaning: families of Army personnel should prepare for 1 month -- the Army will provide for those in the military).

Other agencies and politicians are suggesting anywhere from 1 week to 3 months of preparations.

-- Dean -- from (almost) Duh Moines (dtmiller@nevia.net), July 11, 1999.


The thing about focusing on terrorism is that there is not a whole lot you can do about it. Old Git suggested that having water NOW is a good idea, because a terrorist attack could happen any time (and apparently almost did). Link

Some think Comet Lee may fall on our heads and really ruin our day/s.

Some people get killed by random drive-by shooters.

How do you prepare for random things like that? You can't - other than being as prepared as you are comfortable with to face ANY adversity.

You may be right about terrorism being the rationale for keeping the "truth" from Joe Sixpack, but really, I think the risk to the economy from panic buying and cashing out is a much more immediate concern. I would think terrorists would plan any attacks to coincide with the chaos of rollover, and news now would not likely affect their timetable. Bad news now however might have a very real and negative effect on the economy, so "they" prefer to delay that as long as possible.

-- Linda (lwmb@psln.com), July 11, 1999.


Ready:

Pray tell, just exactly what in your experience would indicate that this (or any government) ever gave a tinker's damn about the welfare of its population save how that affected the political power-base or the money interests that put them there.

In my opinion, you attach far too much humanity to an institution which throughout history has shown itself for the beast that it truely is.

-- Yan (no@no.no), July 11, 1999.


ready:

No, those were my responses, nobody stole my handle. But I think 3 days is insufficient. I agree here with deJager, who said preparing for 3 days isn't preparing at all. But if it gets some people to stop living just moment to moment, it's probably better than nothing. Just not good enough for any y2k impacts beyond the barely noticeable.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 11, 1999.



My handle was only stolen on the FIRST post. Those who are familiar with me on this forum know that I don't post about monkey-loving, or pets that I don't have.

Here's the link for ya, though. It's unclear in my mind why you want to pursue this further, but who am I to judge?

Why three days? Time for a dopeslap? Part I

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), July 11, 1999.


O.K. Flint,

Color me paranoid, but I'm still not certain that's YOU.

Based upon your MO (as the local P.D. would call it) you are a "Polly."

I don't use those stereotypes in my thinking of people.

Is your email real?

I'll send you one if it is.

-- readytoslap (my@dopeyhead.maybe), July 11, 1999.


Yan,

Post on this thread with a real name and an email address, and I'll respond to your question privately. Maybe.

I don't know who you are. But I know you haven't appeared on this forum in quite some time. I DO recognize your handle.

-- readytoslap (my@dopeyhead.maybe), July 11, 1999.


Gee Anita,

You wrote:

"It's unclear in my mind why you want to pursue this further."

I can understand why this might be unclear in your mind, because I have no clue as to the capacity of your mind and why you are posting on this forum. In short, I don't know who you are.

Now, if your email address is real, do tell.

Maybe we can begin a conversation.

-- readytoslap (my@dopeyhead.maybe), July 11, 1999.


gee ready...

you sure seem intent on collecting posters names & addresses. are you making up a personal penpal list or is it perhaps something else?

-- Lysander Knox (nope@too.soon), July 11, 1999.



Gee Lysander,

I think I may have asked the "Mother Lode" of all questions with regard to Y2k. It's as simple as that.

This is, after all, the World Wide Web.

I'm seeing some strange identities posting in response to this question.

Including yours.

-- readytoslap (my@dopeyhead.maybe), July 11, 1999.


Readytoslap:

My E-mail address has ALWAYS been real...even when presented by my imposters.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), July 11, 1999.


Good, Anita,

We'll communicate. O.K. by you?

-- readytoslap (my@dopeyhead.maybe), July 11, 1999.


"strange identities" hummmm... (looking around)

nope... appears to be pretty much the same familar crowd as always.... except for the temporary me that is.

and, btw, whats the web got to do with it, anyway?

-- Lysander Knox (nope@too.soon), July 11, 1999.


Readytoslap:

No problem on this end. I'm off to bed now, but will check my mail in the morning.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), July 11, 1999.



#3 sounds good. TOO good. Remember this is the same government that announced repeatedly and very publicly that we would not send ground troops to Kosovo, thereby calming the American voters (half of which didn't think we should be there at all) and allowing the Serbs to keep on killing indiscriminately. If they had lied,they might have saved many lives, but that's getting off topic here.

I still go with trying to prevent panic while the "big guys" get their money out and get prepared.

-- sue (deco100@aol.com), July 11, 1999.


Flint, your answer is bizarre as you have stated more than once, in private e-mails and on this forum (please see "PAUL MILNE vs. FLINT" for example) that you have prepared yourself for FAR FAR more than three days. What is your logic Flint, 'cause you are not making any sense lately. Are you aware that it's only community preparedness that counts and that if your neighbors are not approximately as prepared as you you are toast anyway? Is this so difficult to figure out?

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), July 11, 1999.

ready:

Yes, my email address is always real (so is my name!). You're welcome to talk with me offline whenever you want.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 11, 1999.


FOLLOW THE MONEY...!! I suspect that there are lots and lots of "big guys" and insiders that are getting their money out now or will be shortly. They didn't get into their positions for being dumb and I feel that you have to be downright stupid to think the economy is going to survive y2k in its present state. I find it interesting that my broker, who knows my feelings re y2k, never calls me, even tho I am still "piddling" in the stock mkt with some funds I can afford to lose. On the other hand he is calling my DGI friend all the time peddling stock tips. I also wonder about the brokerage house itself, since it is head quartered in St. Louis. I will say out loud. Edward Jones How many brokerage houses are head quartered in St Louis. I don't know. Anybody else know?

Taz

-- Taz (Tassie@aol.com), July 11, 1999.


I have always thought that the answer was #1B - the longer and harder we work on this problem, the milder the outcome will be. Didn't Go-Skin-Em even mention this when he said (and I poorly paraphrase)...

What do you want me to do? If I say now that all is lost, nothing more will get done and we truely will be toast. If I say it will be a three day disaster, then the programmers will continue to work and good things might happen. Nobody knows. But if we keep working on this, we will surely be better off than sufferring a full scale panic with no remediation over the next 12 months....

So I think that the authorities are actually doing the correct thing: Keeping the masses from destroying the economy while the rest of us work as hard as possible to fix this thing. In other words...

As GN noted, due to the intrisic nature of our current economy, very few can actually prepare. The panic, when it comes, will shut down the economy, whenever the panic comes. We cannot change that. Better to panic after we have done as much as we can rather than before.

Link challenged at the moment. Too worn out to find either the GN or the Go-Skin-Em link. I will try though, if it matters.

Sincerely,

-- Uhmm... (jfcp81a@prodigy.com), July 11, 1999.


I think the answer is "None of the above." I think the real answer has more to do with statements being made by TBTB to the effect that people's reactions will be worse than the actual event.

It also, IMO, has more to do with trying to keep the financial system afloat for as long as possible, rather than any concern for the welfare of the citizenry. Whenever the subject of the public "panicking" comes up in an article, it almost always means "people will take their money out of the bank." (By the way, taking your money out of the bank because of Y2K is not panic, it is a very rational decision, like getting in a storm cellar when you see a tornado coming your way.)

If, a year and a half ago, the government had announced that there was the possibility of severe disruptions and recommended that everyone should try to build up a food reserve of six to eight weeks, or possibly more, the system would have been able to handle the extra demand and it might have actually been a plus for the economy (and especially for farmers). However, if those same people tried to build up a six to eight week supply of currency, it would have crippled the banking system.

I think most GI's would agree that there would be bank runs if enough people were made aware of the truth of the situation. The efforts of the government to prevent the mainstream media from truthfully reporting the situation are working better than even some skeptic friends of mine could have imagined (even some of the DWGI's I know are surprised that most people are still oblivious).

WHEN the bank runs start, the banks will run out of currency. They will then have to begin rationing withdrawals, issue cashier's checks instead of currency, or close the banks. THAT is when people will panic. By preventing people from reacting RATIONALLY (i.e. taking their hard earned money out of the bank), until the last possible minute, they are shortening the amount of time that a condition of mass panic will exist.

After Jan. 1, when Joe six-pack realizes that his bank has gone under and all his money is gone, he won't be panicking any more, he'll just be depressed.

-- Clyde (clydeblalock@hotmail.com), July 11, 1999.


Clyde:

You make an interesting statement here:

"I think most GI's would agree that there would be bank runs if enough people were made aware of the truth of the situation."

Ah yes, but what *is* the situation? Baldly summarized, we have umpteen declarations of substantial compliance and reports of successful intra- and inter-bank testing on the one hand, and raucous claims that banking is toast by a small but loud group of outsiders who hate the banking system on the other hand.

If a "GI" is to be defined as anyone who is convinced the banking system is doomed despite essentially *all* evidence, then of course there would be bank runs if this "official truth" were broadly publicized. But by all indications, the "GI truth" is a far cry from the actual situation on the ground.

Basically, the only real negative evidence against banks is (1) that they continue to remediate and test (as they should -- would you rather they quit?); and (2) that we have essentially no information about the status of banks in 3rd world countries.

Now, if we ignore all the positive compliance and testing reports (which takes a boatload of ignoring, face it) and make the unsupported assumptions that continuing to test is implicit admission by the banks that their software is hopeless, and that anything we *don't* know must therefore be just awful, we can make a *very* weak case that banks are in trouble. But that takes a lot of ignoring and a lot of very dubious assumptions. I find it hard to believe that any rational person would regard this highly jaundiced view as the "truth", unless they were powerfully motivated by a blind Agenda of Doom, and wanted to see the system collapse whatever it takes.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 11, 1999.


Flint,

I don't disagree with you. I believe the banking system is way ahead of everyone else. I even believe my own bank has done a wonderful job and is now compliant. I still withdrew all of my money. That's because I still think the rest of the world is screwed. If/when the stock market tanks, people will freak. When people find out that the FDIC is not releasing which banks are compliant and which banks are not, they will freak. If they thought the power might go out for a month or two, they will freak. If they think there will be food shortages, they will freak, etc., etc., etc.

Quite frankly, I believe exactly what the government says, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." OK, fine. You give me proof that people won't absolutely, totally freak out if they had even the slightest clue about the possible consequences about Y2K and I MIGHT (ha ha) put my money back in the bank before next Jan. 1 (NOT!).

Personally, I could care less what anyone else does at this point. I have food, I have water, and I have guns. I don't want anything from anyone else, except to be left alone. If nothing happens and Y2K turns out to be a "1" or even less, I will be very happy. I can leave this lame place where I am hiding out and go back to civilization. I don't even care if I lose the money I invested in all of my survival supplies and even take a hit on the house I bought. I don't want this shit to happen and I never asked for it. All I want is to be able to get through this God-Awful mess in one piece so I can get on with my life the way it was before.

-- Clyde (clydeblalock@hotmail.com), July 11, 1999.


Flint,

I would be interested in knowing (without being specific of course) what size population you live near. Your viewpoint is always interesting and I would like to connect the dots between your "view on things" and the hazard exposure, population, etc. that a guy like you has. BTW 1000 rounds a week is impressive...

-- BiGG (supersite@acronet.net), July 11, 1999.


P.S.

Just for the record, in case you didn't infer it from my last post, I want to say that I think Y2K SUCKS and I wish I never heard of it. Ignorance must be bliss.

Just because I'm a "doomer" doesn't mean I want it to happen.

-- Clyde (clydeblalock@hotmail.com), July 11, 1999.


BiGG:

I live on the outskirts of Huntsville, Alabama. Huntsville itself is about 150,000 people, which constitutes maybe half of the total population within 50 miles of downtown Huntsville.

As for those rounds, I admit my wife shoots much more than I do. She shoots in competitions as a hobby, using 9mm and .40S&W calibers, while I only shoot enough of those to stay accurate with them, and mostly plink away with a .22 If I add in the .22 rounds I go through, (I didn't count those) then I guess we do 1500 a week. It's our only real entertainment (we don't go to movies or eat out or anything), but we love it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 11, 1999.


(1) One reason for urging a 3 day preparation is that most people won't prepare for more...(Standard response)

(2) Don't create panic...even through there is time to prepare for more than 3 days.

(3) Clueless government officials...

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), July 11, 1999.


It is quite a balancing act on the part of the government. I, too, lean towards #3.

I have accepted that this may not be the right answer but at this point it is too late to switch tracks. My fear is the government may have made the wrong decision and is incapable of handling the tremendous variety of problems we face.

Should this prove to be the case, there will be considerable regret over this choice in the months to come. Many people will be up the creek.

Increasing the announced preparedness time to 2 weeks would not start a panic and might give some of those millions a shot at preparing.

Not knowing the answer to this question of yours certainly raises the stakes.

-- Mike Lang (webflier@erols.com), July 11, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ