for ED--ch. 1 comment

greenspun.com : LUSENET : HumptyDumptyY2K : One Thread

Ed, i noticed today, in rereading chapter one, that you mention connie morella as one in congress who will probably be re-elected, and i know she has been very vocal on y2k. but i am not sure her record is good.

i went to spring comdex in chicago, and spent some time at the y2k pavilion there, especially in the booth of the general services admin. i pinned one of the GSA guys to the wall because i had been very frustrated by the fact the administration is not showing any muscle on y2k in the business area. i asked him why they weren't using a big stick on business, and forcing them to become compliant.

the official's answer floored me. he said the administrations' hands were tied by a law, sponsored by connie morella, which specified that they must work in cooperation with business and that they could not force anything on business. you may want to check with the GSA or others on this, as i haven't had a chance to check it out.

-- jocelyne slough (jonslough@tln.net), August 16, 1999

Answers

Jocelyne,

Well, it's all relative, I think: many would argue that Bennett and Dodd have been the most outspoken about Y2K, but a lot of people are also pretty grumpy with them for downplaying the more sobering and pessimistic parts of their Senate report last March.

Also, I agree with some of the other postings on this thread: trying to get the government to FORCE things upon business is likely to backfire. If we could just get them to disclose their Y2K status in honest detail (which the SEC has managed to do, in a very limited way, with their 10- Q reports), then presumably the public could make their own decisions about what kind of pressure they want to put on business....

Ed

-- Ed Yourdon (HumptyDumptyY2K@yourdon.com), August 17, 1999.


"... specified that they must work in cooperation with business and that they could not force anything on business ..."

You're complaining about this? That's like a breath of fresh air from that bunch in congress! Yes, Y2K is a serious issue, but in the hope that this is still a free country (but becoming less so by the minute), we must not let this be an excuse for more government meddling in the affairs of private individuals and business. The small victories (and the occasional large victory) are in spite of government involvement, not because of it.

For the record, just about anyone would class my own views as being in the "doom and gloom" crowd. Be that as it may, it's still no excuse for government mandates.

-- Stephen McGehee (scm@adjutant.com), August 16, 1999.


Canadian politicians have steered clear of the issue. Not that they didn't have notice, I personally emailed every leader two years ago. This is a no-win situation for the elected. We did have a House of Commons subcommittee that looked at the issue and a friend of mine gave extensive testimony. Last winter I emailed the chair of the subcommittee who happens to live north of me in my province and simply asked him if he had made any contingency plans for his family when it could be -40C over New Year. Needless to say, I didn't get a return email. Our politicians will use y2k as more of a lever over business, we may have the best quality of life according to the U.N., but we are more overly-governed and taxed than any like nation with 30MM people. In the U.S., your energy department washed it's hands from y2k and gave the "big stick" to NERC, which was a nice trick. If governments survive this, business will be stagnated forever in a morass of regulation. After all, if the people can't trust the business people, the the government of the people, for the people will step in.

-- Rick Reilly (rreilly@home.com), August 16, 1999.

It is realy frightening to hear "just plain folks" supporting businees in whatever they care to do, claiming that governmemt is what's dragging our economy and culture behind the bushes. At least with governmemt we have some input. Well, that's the theory anyway; goverment sides with business whenever it can.

Name ONE business of any size which had voluntarilly cleaned up any mess it has made; name ONE which has, of it's own accord, deferred from exploiting to it's maximum any resource available regardless of it's detriment to people and/or the land; name ONE business which has not had to be dragged kicking and screaming to practice production methodologies which are less harmful to "children and other growing things."

Between subsidies, tax breaks, lax legislation and even wars being fought in the interest of big-business, the relatively few and innocuous restrictions on business pale into a bad joke. In my darkest nightmares I can't imagine what shape this planet would be in had business been given total carte blanche in their exploitation of people and resources. All the "green" ink put to recycled paper is but a faint echo compared to the whining of business when asked to conduct themselves in a responsible manner.

Are you a major stockholder in a large corporation or something, Mr. McGehee? I can think of no other reason for defense of corporations, their attitudes and actions.

Hallyx

"Everything has changed save our modes of thinking, and we thus drift towards unparalleled catastrophes."---Albert Einstein

-- (Hallyx@aol.com), August 17, 1999.


I was going to leave this one alone, since it's getting off topic, but since the question was addressed directly to me, I'll answer.

"Are you a major stockholder in a large corporation or something, Mr. McGehee? I can think of no other reason for defense of corporations, their attitudes and actions."

No, am not, nor have I ever been a major stockholder of anything (although I wish all the best to those fortunate enough to be). I'm an individual trying to run my own life and my own one-man business without others trying to tell me what to do. And to answer your questions about "Name one business ..." - I'll reply with "me".

Much of what you say is true in certain circumstances. There are some real rotten apples in business just as there are a LOT of rotten apples in government. I've generally found that those who hold views such as your own are difficult if not impossible to convince otherwise. As I have with my own brother, we'll just have to agree to disagree and try to make the world a better place - each in our own way.

-- Stephen McGehee (scm@adjutant.com), August 17, 1999.



First, my apologies to the HD forum. I mistakenly posted this here thinking I was on the TB2K board, where this level of heat is more acceptable. As you know, I try to maintain a mellower demeanor here.

Also, I perhaps should not have personalized my rant. Sorry, Stephen. I'm running into the same problem with definitions and applications of scale as I have in my discussions with Marsh. And I should allow you the same benefit of the doubt.

As I become more aware of the corporate/government connection (much of which is endemic to the Y2K problem)I become increasingly frustrated. Whereas a small businessman is still a human being, subject to morality, concience, and force of persuasion, corporations beyond a certain size possess none of these personal attributes. Yet they are still priviledged with the status of legal individual, with all of the rights inherent thereto---except recourse to the ballot, which they handle in a more egregious fashion.

You have identified your business as one which you conduct in a moral, considerate matter. I dissolved my business (not sold) because I could not. Major corporations seem not to have the ethical awareness that you and I take for granted.

Where is the line between a guy just trying to make a living and being inhibited by non-essential restrictions and a souless, immoral destructive corporate machine, protection from which we must expect through our collective endeavor, ie. government?

This does relate to the Y2K recovery. How many corps will whine about restrictions making their recovery more difficult, asking the government for waivers and exemptions from regulations which protect our citizens? That's a kettle of worms I can't even begin to address.

Hallyx

"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants." -- General Omar N. Bradley

-- (Hallyx@aol.com), August 17, 1999.


Thanks for your considerate response. I suspect that we agree on quite a bit despite our differences. I'll make this my final post on this thread - always glad to continue via private email if you wish.

-- Stephen McGehee (scm@adjutant.com), August 17, 1999.

looks like i opened up a can of worms. for the record, i am generally in favor of a laissez-faire attitude toward business. but i do think this is an extraordinary situation. i also believe that the same small businesses that have said they will do nothing, will be screaming in december for someone to save them. then in january, those that are in deep doodoo will scream for the government to save them. and i expect that we as taxpayers will be asked to pick up the tab to save businesses that were too stupid to remediate and to prepare.

-- jocelyne slough (jonslough@tln.net), August 17, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ