I think, if Bill Clinton by some miracle actually took whatever effective steps he could regarding Y2K, that the Republican leadership in Congress would oppose what he was doing, because he's Bill Clinton. This feeling of mine especially applies to the House.

And if you know my posts at all, you know I am not a Clinton apologist.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), September 06, 1999

Answers

You could very well be right. The problem is that when we get a leader with absolutely no credibility, it is assumed by some that EVERYTHING he does is caca de torro. Kind of like the boy who cried wolf. So the republicans--especially the brainwashed, goosetepping globalist neocons who stormed the house in 94--want to stroke their own egos and flex their power just like the rest of the slimy bunch, probably wont hesitate to exploit any news item toward their destructive agenda.

-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), September 07, 1999.

What steps do you think Bill should take and do you think it would matter?

-- Sheila P (Sheilamars@aol.com), September 07, 1999.

NOTICE FROM THE WHITE HOUSE

Democrats announced today that they are changing their emblem from a donkey to a condom because it more clearly reflects their party's political stance. A condom fits an inflated head, prevents collaboration, protects a bunch of dicks, and gives one a sense of security while screwing others.

-- anon (anon@anon.com), September 07, 1999.

coprolith,

I had *you* pegged as a reformed neocon. Oh well.

Actually, neo-conservatives are dead. It was inevitable. In my humble opinion, it's the libertarian-lite crowd that swept the hill in 94-- if you take Tom Delay as characteristic of those who found support in the grassroots.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 07, 1999.

P.S. Peter, I really don't know if they'd oppose it so much as kick themselves in the pants for not having the balls to have done it themselves.

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 07, 1999.

the honorable Stan Farnya says

coprolith, I had *you* pegged as a reformed neocon. Oh well.

Not really, much of my political belief is really just (1) a product of my Catholic upbringing and (2) my fun times as an anarchist punk when in college. I always thought that the neocons are the type who are knee-jerk foreign interventionists and were in favor of mandatory sentencing laws and capital punishment. I always thought they talked about "less government" to their voters but in reality passed more laws and more arcane controls to further gum up the federal bureaucracy. I always thought that they were tough as nails and unable or unwilling to compromise an inch for fear of getting disciplined by the House leadership.

Not that neocons are totally bad, or democrats for that matter. Good people exist in all factions of the three branches.

-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), September 07, 1999.

You always have to be aware of the up side of down and the down side of up. No system is without it's weak spots. There's always some potential for game-playing, corruption and other various and assorted types of BS. In a representative democracy, the weakness is it's steady-state ripeness for demagoguery and grandstanding. To set yourself apart from the herd, you have to either propose something radically different than the ideas of your opponent or/and attack the radically different ideas of your opponent as being the road to ruination. The message is almost always the same, "Vote for me, and I'll set you free." The further up the scale you wish to climb, the grander your proposals need to be, as well as the grander your attacks.

The worst time to need leadership, is as an election approaches (This is also the down side of the generally up idea of term limits). Clinton got himself bogged down in BJ-gate, and then Kosovo. He managed to survive both, with his popularity rating intact, but he walks a very thin tightrope - still up in the air, but it wouldn't take much of a breeze to blow him over.

Both parties see Y2K as the political landmine that shatters their hopes for a victory, next November. If it all goes to hell, the feeling is that there won't be an election anyway. If nothing happens, no one wants to be the one who has set his or herself up for charges of fear-mongering. If it lands somewhere in the middle, both sides have whispered enough, or so I'm sure they feel, about the problem that each will try to build claims that they were the ones who sounded the clarion call.

What I think you are seeing, is the classic tragedy of indecision. No one has yet broken from the pack and taken the big risk of making really strong statements about Y2K dangers. I'm sure the party bosses on both sides are keeping a tight hold on the leashes, in this matter, so not only does a politician risk alienating the public, but also risks losing the support of their camp. Our national leaders, right now, are like possums in the headlights of oncoming cars.

In regards to Peter's question, I'd say yes, whoever breaks first and gives the alarm, will be put through the shredder by the other party. It's all a part of the game.

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), September 07, 1999.

Bokonon, you always see issues clearly and express them beautifully. Something in me resonates to what you have laid out here as being absolutely the essence of the dilemma. Don't you wish we had at least ONE hero amongst our leaders today, who would risk his reputation the way that Ed Yourdon, Cory Hamasaki, and other notables have?

-- Elaine Seavey (Gods1sheep@aol.com), September 07, 1999.

Elaine, Part of me hungers for that hero, and part of me says, Ohhhh beware that one who, tainted by the poison of politics, would risk so much, for God knows what dubious reason. My cynicism about politicians and politics is pretty much boundless.

I suppose that I would welcome the leadership and hold my criticisms as to their motives, but I'd keep one eye on the person at all times.

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), September 07, 1999.