I regret that what I write below may not seem worth the effort to read... for those pressed for time or lacking interest in what I have written in other threads. Yet, I think that I write things here that are worth the effort whether you are new to Y2K, an old hat, or a lurker. Make the effort to read it and, then, tell me if I'm right or wrong. I truly do look forward to your public and private responses.

...

There seems to be no argument that the modern luxuries and privileges that the American now enjoys is unlike anything before. And if you have traveled, you too might say that there is no place like home. I have said it. Americans enjoy a higher standard of living than ever before. At the same time, we can say it's perfect by any means. There is room for improvement-- some say, much improvement and not just in America. Elsewhere I have written: "The dawn of a new millennium is approaching, and all the people of the world look upon it with mixed feelings of apprehension and encouragement. Mixed with our fear for the future, there is hope for 'a new flourishing of the human spirit, mediated through an authentic culture of freedom.' If that hope is to prevail, we will need to learn the courage to be."

A relevant question, then, is this: Are we now disaffected with the cause of Freedom?

This much we do know: The Year 2000 technology problem poses serious risks to life, property, and the high quality of living that we now enjoy. The impact of computer and embedded chip failures potentially threatens simultaneous and multiple disruptions in services including financial services, power, water, sewage, telecommunications, health care, public safety, and distribution of food and other goods. We do not know, however, whether it will be a bump in the road or something more severe. But though these risks are real, we are not preparing for the storms ahead as a nation. In general, any serious preparation is viewed as an significant inconvenience to our habits of every day life and, possibly, an insurmountable challenge that now threatens our precision timed and calibrated system of money, wealth, and resources.

A relevant question, then, is this: should we be concerned about these private and public vulnerabilities?

We hear that some progress is being made on the frontlines. Some of us have heard that the war against Y2K is being waged across America and around the world. But if this is a war, it is unlike any recent war. We are not spectators of this war, we don't have our arm chair seat in the war room, and our commentators and reporters don't have much to say. The scoreboard is unreliable. We only hear rumors about this supposed war where the death march of programmers is our best hope to win this war in the nick of time. Yes, the captains of industry assure the concerned few that a war has been won. Government officials speak mixed messages. Though they admit the risks are high, they make light of our concerns and preparations. On the other hand, they tell us that we, as individuals, should not depend on government for our safety.

In this war, we can come to only one unfortunate opinion: we must trust in ourselves and provide for our own safety.

But will we, as a people, arrive at this opinion, and if we do, will we trust in ourselves as a people or as individuals? Will we provide for ourselves as a people or as individuals? If we are disaffected with the cause of Freedom, and yet some can come to this unfortunate opinion, will the some only look as far as their individual noses? If the threat of any loss of convenience is a truth that we cannot handle, then will we never come to that opinion as a people? If we come to this unfortunate opinion as individuals concerned only for themselves and their families, will our delicately balanced system fail? However you want to look at it, the likely outcome is as terrifying as it is terribly unclear. What is obvious is a need for leadership and responsibility. The art of government, however, seems no longer an art of leadership and honesty.

Yes, history is relevant. But it also offers us mixed messages. Great leaders and great peoples have faced great challenges and prevailed. But history also tells as much about losers as it does about winners. No winner has always won, no loser has always lost. And, yes, I have confidence that human beings shall ultimately prevail over Y2K, but I wonder at what cost. Will it be the cause of Freedom? Or something much more concrete such as life, property, and our high standards of living? It is possible (however unlikely) that both things could be lost or deeply wounded. But to contemplate the stakes or to prepare in the face of such stakes is not the same as (1) to desire catastrophe or (2) to think one is ready to take that kind of bull by the horns. It is an error to insist that pessimists desire catastrophe or believe they can ride such a bull.

Yes, some people desire change. I have written this before. And some look forward to opportunities that such change may bring: whether it is for the renewal of a moral project that pursues the course of Freedom, economic and social change, or some other boon to humanity. But I believe it is to misunderstand these people (however they express themselves) to say that they truly look forward to the pain, suffering, and difficulties that change may also bring. It is to misunderstand those that are concerned that Y2K could bring the end of the world as we know it (however unlikely)... as much as it is to misunderstand those who have confidence that Y2K risks will end as a non event (however unlikely). It is a greater error, however, to discourage the prudent opinion that we must now trust in ourselves and provide for our own safety.

There will be individuals whose insights (right or wrong) lead them to believe that the real risks of Y2K are greater or lesser than any of the clear risks of Y2K that we generally understand as a community of so-called pollies and doomers. I do believe that the so-called pollies and doomers do form a community of intelligence, but this community is divided by passionate arguments, overwhelming uncertainties, and basic questions of right and wrong. If we could find some way to be friends, I imagine that we would accomplish greater things. But this is prevented by our unwillingness to open our minds and hearts to each other and to pursue the truth without spitting and cursing at each other along the way. Presently, we drag each other, kicking and screaming to some semblance of truth that is distorted by our personal failures.

So-called polly and doomer both seek the compromise and clarity to be made by government. But government can not do for us what we can not do for ourselves. Today, government seems but a poor mirror of our best and worst hopes, virtues, intelligence, and ability. Perhaps, it was always this way. So, I say again, we must now trust in ourselves and provide for our own safety. And if our safety requires us to think for ourselves, make decisions, and act upon them, we should now go the distances, make the sacrifices, and come to good decisions about what our effort shall be in this war. We should stand shoulder to shoulder as a people, and make a courageous stand for the things that matter most. We must do some good that will not be just simply remembered, but also that will later be judged to be Good, Beautiful, and True.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 13, 1999

Answers

Six months ago a lurker on another thread made the comment that he couldn't understand why Flint and I got into such heated debates. As he saw it, we were "on the same sheet of music compared to 99% of the rest of the world."

As much as I feel compelled to distance myself from Flint and his arguments, the truth of that statement still resonates within me.

-- a (a@a.a), September 13, 1999.

The American Culture collectively historically rises to solve big problems. However, it appears to also be the case that little problems that could become big problems (only two stupid digits, mind you) don't seem to catch our attention until they are big problems. Let's hope we can still rise to solve big problems.

Off the topic: A sports T-shirt had printed on it...

"It's only through pain that we can achieve suffering".

-- Dave (aaa@aaa.com), September 13, 1999.

Good Stan. One core issue that you touch on is that of the role of government. What is its role anyhow? what do we expect of it? I think many of us are supremely dispaointed and jaded in our current government- current as in our lifetimes- at least those of us who are old enough to remember Nixon, Ford, Carter, etc........

We are angry that government does not seem to be taking a stand in this matter- and doing their job to warn the people, etc, etc. but what is the government's job anyway? Why do we expect them (it) to tell us what to do anyway? I think this is some of the confusion and frustration. Many people now believe that it is the governments job to take care of them, the problem, etc and tell them what to do. Others, wanting some degree of independence, want just to be left alone. But we all tend to look to our government to be truthful and it is not anymore. So- that leaves us hanging- and frustrated. And not knowing who or what to believe.

and yes- we can believe in ourselves, and what our own eyes and experience tell us. But when it comes to something like a y2k issue- for the many of us who are only marginally computer literate-(push the submit button and it does- yay!), what do we know about this anyway? I know about what I know about- the crops I grow, soil, livestock, etc- but not computers, meteors, comets, UFO's, foreign country politics, etc- so I depend on the government to inform me and look after my interests in these matters- but it doesn't. So where does that leave me? Disenfranchised.

-- farmer (hillsidefarm@drbs.net), September 13, 1999.

PS- "a". I'm glad to hear you say that. All along I've thought that Flint gets vilified (vilifried) on this board unnecessarily. (Best regards, Flint.)

-- Dave (aaa@aaa.com), September 13, 1999.

Stan

Although this might not be quite what you are looking for may I recommend;

 Amazon.com: A Glance: Generation of Vipers

If folks think that we are living in a Generation of Vipers they would do well to read Philip Wylie's look at society 50 yrs ago. Then they will see it might not be the structure of society that has gone wrong,, it maybe the common person and their inability to grow up.

Philip's book is a scathing look at the time around WWII (and I believe an update in later editions).

Somethings change and somethings stay the same.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), September 13, 1999.

"No dictator, no invader, can hold an imprisoned population by force forever. There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom. Against that power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand. The Centauri learned this lesson once. We will teach it to them again. Though it take a thousand years, we will be free. Michael L. Straczynsji

-- quoter (quoter@quoterrr.com), September 13, 1999.

Stan: Your essay is very thought provoking. "We should stand shoulder to shoulder as a people, and make a courageous stand for things that matter most." Ask 10 people this question, and you will get 10 different answers. So, I agree 100% with "So, I say again we must trust ourselves, make decisions, and act upon them, we should now go the distances, make the sacrifices, and come to good decisions about what our effort shall be in this war." I believe there are several on this board that have done this, I wish we all lived next to each other too. Bardou

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), September 13, 1999.

[Stan, you're even more verbose than I am [grin]. My sense of what you've written is that it suffers from presumption while making some good points in the abstract. So I'll parse it out as best I can.]

There seems to be no argument that the modern luxuries and privileges that the American now enjoys is unlike anything before. And if you have traveled, you too might say that there is no place like home. I have said it. Americans enjoy a higher standard of living than ever before. At the same time, we can say it's perfect by any means. There is room for improvement-- some say, much improvement and not just in America. Elsewhere I have written: "The dawn of a new millennium is approaching, and all the people of the world look upon it with mixed feelings of apprehension and encouragement. Mixed with our fear for the future, there is hope for 'a new flourishing of the human spirit, mediated through an authentic culture of freedom.' If that hope is to prevail, we will need to learn the courage to be."

[Stan, that sounds like a political speech, lacking only pauses marked (wait here for applause from crowd). A "new flourishing", forsooth. Shades of Kennedy's "new frontier" and "new ocean." But OK, bottom line -- we're well off, we can do better, the future is always uncertain, optimists look forward to the future more than pessimists. Great.]

A relevant question, then, is this: Are we now disaffected with the cause of Freedom?

[Seems unlikely. For the Great Unwashed, freedom in practice has always meant being left alone by others, while we meddle in their affairs for their own good. There may well be a sense that the pendulum has swung too far toward the meddling end, simply because technology has made it affordable.]

This much we do know: The Year 2000 technology problem poses serious risks to life, property, and the high quality of living that we now enjoy.

[I'd qualify that. We don't *know* that y2k bugs pose serious risks. We can say for sure that some people are convinced of it. But you sound like a devout Stephen King fan saying "We know King is a great author". You might find some informed disagreement here.]

The impact of computer and embedded chip failures potentially threatens simultaneous and multiple disruptions in services including financial services, power, water, sewage, telecommunications, health care, public safety, and distribution of food and other goods.

[Most of these monsters have by now faded to dust bunnies once the light was shined under the bed. Despite the TB2K party line, by far the strongest case can now be made that *most* of these fears were overblown. The functional definition of a "disruption" has gradually shrunk from total collapse, to very serious problems for a while, to (by now) anything anyone finds out of the ordinary. Of course, you may not agree with my expectation of a very mild constellation of such disruptions, but your essay should probably not be based on the assumption that my view is incorrect. You are spending your prognosticative capital before you've earned it.]

We do not know, however, whether it will be a bump in the road or something more severe. But though these risks are real, we are not preparing for the storms ahead as a nation.

[See what I mean? If we don't know whether it will be minor, how can we know (in the next sentence, no less!) that there are storms ahead? You have belied your own lip service without so much as taking a breath first.]

In general, any serious preparation is viewed as an significant inconvenience to our habits of every day life and, possibly, an insurmountable challenge that now threatens our precision timed and calibrated system of money, wealth, and resources.

[This all begs a definition of "serious" preparation. Preparations even among TB2K regulars range from 50 bucks worth of extra food to an entire major change of lifestyle. Where on this spectrum do you draw the line beyond which preparations are "serious"? Along those lines, at what point do you think someone should decide whether a challenge has been surmounted, and who should that be? Again, the strongest case can be made that our system contains a great deal of slack and slop. It's imprecise as hell. Bankruptcies are (and always have been) common. Technology is changing the world around us at an accelerating rate. The economy is more like a big team of horses than a precision machine. Some of the horses die, others are born, things clop along seamlessly.]

A relevant question, then, is this: should we be concerned about these private and public vulnerabilities?

[More relevant: What should our concerns be? Everyone has always lived with an uncertain future. We guess at odds, we take out insurance, we pray before bedtime, we hedge our bets, we preserve our options, keep fallback positions, and try not to burn bridges. So we've always been concerned about our vulnerabilities. Why should this change?]

We hear that some progress is being made on the frontlines.

[Be honest. We hear about a LOT of progress on the frontlines. We are inundated with expressions of confidence that rollover will pass uneventfully. All but a small minority of organizations nominally predict no problems, and the rest predict nothing significant. But we also hear that not all of these glowing reports are necessarily realistic. Characterizing all of this as "some progress" is conservative.]

Some of us have heard that the war against Y2K is being waged across America and around the world. But if this is a war, it is unlike any recent war. We are not spectators of this war, we don't have our arm chair seat in the war room, and our commentators and reporters don't have much to say. The scoreboard is unreliable. We only hear rumors about this supposed war where the death march of programmers is our best hope to win this war in the nick of time.

[Whew! I've read about death marches, but so far I haven't seen even a single case where a y2k remediation effort has entered a death march. Does anyone here know of a real death march already? Most I've heard is of cancelled/prohibited vacations around rollover.

Anyway, the software "war" has been being waged full tilt for decades. There have indeed been death marches for many projects. The Capers Jones numbers are not pretty -- big projects either run *way* over time and budget, or else get scrubbed altogether. Many battles lost, other victories Pyhrric. Yet business bumbles along, we aren't spectators because we don't care, and our commentators and reporters have recognized that this 5-decade "war" isn't a story.

But like any such war, there aren't any total winners or losers. Companies that bungle big projects still get enough working to stay competetive often enough. We make jokes about software and woodpeckers, yet computerization writ large has added tremendously to our productivity, enabling a lifestyle we could never have built atop strong backs and sweating brows, eh?

So we won't "win" or "lose" the y2k "war", much less in the nick of time. We'll end up with a final score, a grade if you prefer. The distance between perfection and a (barely) passing grade is vast. Indications are that (except for islands of ourtages, maybe) conditions will be messy but manageable, temporarily. After that, the few paying close attention to y2k will lose interest and wander off, there never having been that much to be interested in.

Because face it, what interests us now isn't the kinetic, it's the potential. Calamity at best remains in the future. At some point, almost everyone will realize the future has passed without much of newsworthy fascination, and they'll wander off. Andy will find a new conspiracy, 'a' will go back to regretting being born too late, and KOS will sink back into his precious mud.]

Yes, the captains of industry assure the concerned few that a war has been won.

[More accuratly, they assure us that the "enemy" never really threatened.]

Government officials speak mixed messages. Though they admit the risks are high, they make light of our concerns and preparations. On the other hand, they tell us that we, as individuals, should not depend on government for our safety.

[As a practical matter, this is true. We shouldn't be dependent on government in any case. And by all indications, government itself will be more profoundly affected by date bugs than the private sector anyway.]

In this war, we can come to only one unfortunate opinion: we must trust in ourselves and provide for our own safety.

But will we, as a people, arrive at this opinion, and if we do, will we trust in ourselves as a people or as individuals? Will we provide for ourselves as a people or as individuals?

[By "as a people" do you mean through government activity? I'm willing to help my neighbors if required, and to donate a whole bunch of stuff to charity if it's not required. By "as a people" do you mean that government should take my preparations from me in order th spread them out "fairly" if it turns out I needed them after all?]

If we are disaffected with the cause of Freedom, and yet some can come to this unfortunate opinion, will the some only look as far as their individual noses? If the threat of any loss of convenience is a truth that we cannot handle, then will we never come to that opinion as a people? If we come to this unfortunate opinion as individuals concerned only for themselves and their families, will our delicately balanced system fail?

[I'm lost here. What opinion? Our system is about as delicately balanced as a big flat rock. It soldiers along through depressions, world wars, corrupt administrations, natural disasters and other acts of God. The electrical grid survives key failures, the breadbasket survives major floods, the political system ignores impeachment proceedings, the banking system shrugs off the S&L disaster, and you think everything will go to hell in a handbasket because we fend for ourselves when required rather than waiting for government to do it for us? Golly!]

However you want to look at it, the likely outcome is as terrifying as it is terribly unclear.

[Not true, Stan. A year and a half ago I was very worried, because there just wasn't enough information to rule out the worst case, and the worst case seemed damn bad. And while the details remain unknowable, the likely outcome is far from terrifying. My current medium and long term plans no longer factor in any y2k disruptions at all. No singularity, no discontinuity.]

What is obvious is a need for leadership and responsibility. The art of government, however, seems no longer an art of leadership and honesty.

[Urk! On the whole people behave responsibly, and historians disagree about the leadership we've had. It's too early to get such perspective on current leadership anyway. But the art of government hasn't changed a bit.

It sounds like you're finding a roundabout way of saying you think the government should have adopted your expectations of what y2k will bring, and taken expensive and broad action to mobilize the public against some major difficulties. This was where the late Harlan Smith started. He said Gee, We see an avalanche coming toward us and nowhere to hide. Why doesn't someone in the government DO something? Why are they ignoring a clear and present danger? Why are they lying to us with claims that it's minor and under control, when it clearly is not.

By the time he died, Harlan realized that our systems are resiliant, that the hundreds of billions spent remediating have accomplished their goal, that the concerns about foreign countries are mostly concerns about foreign *governments*, not the private industries there, that the great embedded system scare melted away under examination, etc. Harlan was involved, active and honest enough to stare ALL the facts in the face, and downgrade y2k from a category 5 disaster to a false alarm. Can you do as well?]

Yes, history is relevant. But it also offers us mixed messages. Great leaders and great peoples have faced great challenges and prevailed. But history also tells as much about losers as it does about winners. No winner has always won, no loser has always lost. And, yes, I have confidence that human beings shall ultimately prevail over Y2K, but I wonder at what cost. Will it be the cause of Freedom? Or something much more concrete such as life, property, and our high standards of living?

[Or, most likely by far, will it be the money already spent remediating and testing and making contingency plans and stockpiling? Yes, the market is overheated and due for a correction regardless. Y2k may or may not be the trigger for this correction, and we may never know. But we've had bear markets and mechanical breakdowns and kept our freedoms, lives, property, and (for most of us) our standards of living.]

It is possible (however unlikely) that both things could be lost or deeply wounded. But to contemplate the stakes or to prepare in the face of such stakes is not the same as (1) to desire catastrophe or (2) to think one is ready to take that kind of bull by the horns. It is an error to insist that pessimists desire catastrophe or believe they can ride such a bull.

Yes, some people desire change. I have written this before. And some look forward to opportunities that such change may bring: whether it is for the renewal of a moral project that pursues the course of Freedom, economicand social change, or some other boon to humanity. But I believe it is to misunderstand these people (however they express themselves) to say that they truly look forward to the pain, suffering, and difficulties that change may also bring. It is to misunderstand those that are concerned that Y2K could bring the end of the world as we know it (however unlikely)... as much as it is to misunderstand those who have confidence that Y2K risks will end as a non event (however unlikely). It is a greater error, however, to discourage the prudent opinion that we must now trust in ourselves and provide for our own safety.

[And I thought I was long winded. I don't think the line is either fine or fuzzy, between the unshakeable conviction that we face disaster, and any sincere regret if it comes. But without doubt, some have seriously pondered why this conviction remains so unshakeable in the face of large and growing evidence to the contrary. And this position has morphed from statements of likely odds (at a time when this argument couldn't be gainsaid), to systematic exaggeration of warnings and dismissal of good news (it's self-reporting, it's government lies, etc.), to straight (and often profane) personal attacks against those who disagree or present good news.

This trend has devolved from any real attempt to argue a supportable position, to an unsightly posture of sticking fingers in ears, shutting eyes real real hard and shouting I CAN'T HEAR YOU! If this devolution is NOT the result of a sincere desire to see disaster come to pass, then it's simply a childish refusal to admit error, leading to an inability to learn from error. Which is consistent, of course. If these are people who couldn't admit error in the past, and therefore couldn't learn, how could they have avoided erring in the present?

On the other hand, in some key cases there is a clearly articulated desire to see the collapse of current systems, for various reasons. But in addition to your glowing praise (renewal of morality, freedom, boons to humanity), there's also a darker side that cannot be honestly ignored -- the desire to see all those successful SOBs brought down to the level of the lowest common denominator so common around here.]

There will be individuals whose insights (right or wrong) lead them to believe that the real risks of Y2K are greater or lesser than any of the clear risks of Y2K that we generally understand as a community of so-called pollies and doomers. I do believe that the so-called pollies and doomers do form a community of intelligence, but this community is divided by passionate arguments, overwhelming uncertainties, and basic questions of right andwrong. If we could find some way to be friends, I imagine that we would accomplish greater things. But this is prevented by our unwillingness to open our minds and hearts to each other and to pursue the truth without spitting and cursing at each other along the way. Presently, we drag each other, kicking and screaming to some semblance of truth that is distorted by our personal failures.

[As me sainted mother used to say, be reasonable. See it my way.]

So-called polly and doomer both seek the compromise and clarity to be made by government. But government can not do for us what we can not do for ourselves. Today, government seems but a poor mirror of our best and worst hopes, virtues, intelligence, and ability. Perhaps, it was always this way.

[Yes, it always was]

So, I say again, we must now trust in ourselves and provide for our own safety. And if our safety requires us to think for ourselves, make decisions, and act upon them, we should now go the distances, make the sacrifices, and come to good decisions about what our effort shall be in this war.

[Except there probably isn't any war, nor any distance to go, nor sacrifices to make. In which case decisions to the contrary are not 'good' decisions.]

We should stand shoulder to shoulder as a people, and make a courageous stand for the things that matter most. We must do some good that will not be just simply remembered, but also that will later be judged to be Good, Beautiful, and True.

[More speechifying, Stan. With some exceptions, we are productive people. Maybe not rich, nor famous. But we all chip in (even some who hide in the boonies and blissfully stay out of our way), and it all helps. Life need not be glorious to be rewarding.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 13, 1999.

A species that longs for a Big Brother in the sky ("The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want...") and doesn't receive instant showering of manna from heaven turns instead to a secular Big Brother to make it all "nice". And, like children, they relinquish responsibilty whenever possible, which the government(s) are only too glad to assume.

Thus, we have gigantic institutions run by those only marginally, if at all, smarter than the average person, but who are rather more psychologically warped (power seeking) than the average, empowered by the childish dependency of the rest. And so, the effects of their stupidity and misjudgements have national and international consquences rather than just familial, tribal, or local.

-- A (A@AisA.com), September 13, 1999.

How about these brief observations/opinions:

1) There are proportionally far more people in the U.S. now with Bill Clinton's ethics than those of Nathan Hale, Patrick Henry, the defenders of the Alamo or Wake Island, etc.

2) The people that call the shots in the U.S. increasingly lie when the truth would serve. (Think of ADM, Texaco, the asbestos and cigarette manufacturers, the feds on Waco or the nat'l budget, the bankers on fractional reserve banking and fiat currency, the gov't and corporations when discussing Y2K, etc.)

3) Feelings are substituted for knowledge among most people on matters of public import.

4) When a bare-bones explanation of a complex subject exceeds a person's attention span (as Y2K does), they are highly likely now to conclude that there is nothing to it, rather than becoming aware of how little able they are to interact with the universe on a rational/conscious/proactive basis.

5) In any voluntary interaction between two parties of differing evil/viciousness, the more evil one will invariably profit at the expense of the less. (This is a sort of Gresham's Law of human behavior; it is paraphrased from Ayn Rand).

6) "Shoot the messenger" is still the most common response to receiving inconvenient bad news from someone who is not more powerful than the recipient, as opposed to checking into the news. (The latter does happen occasionally; its frequency can be guessed at from the example of the proportion of Americans who are GIs among those who have heard about Y2K; 2% or less?).

7) The books "Lord of the Flies" and "Man and Society in Calamity" (to say nothing of the writings of Ayn Rand, Robert Ringer, Desmond Morris, Abraham Maslow, the Founding Fathers, etc.) contain more information about human motivation than the sum of everything written or spoken by national office-holders in the U.S. belonging to the 2 primary political parties in the last 30 years.

8) The consequences of Y2K will be like those of thousands of other lesser cataclysms scourging humans throughout history in this way: these will not be believed in advance to be possible (let alone probable) by the vast majority not due to the application of logic, but due to deciding whether or not these events have their PERMISSION to occur. (That bad outcomes don't need anyone's O.K. to happen is why Santayana's dictum is so true).

9) "Those who will not remember history are doomed to repeat it" (Santayana). Now, think of how many of the events of history were highly unpleasant and dangerous to be involved in...

www.y2ksafeminnesota.com

-- (y2ksafeminnesota@hotmail.com), September 13, 1999.

Stan, Flint & Minnesota: Your essays made my day after reading thru some of the earlier posts. Stan your question on what will happen to democracy as we know it IMHO will revolve around several issues: 1.How severe will Y2K be?; 2.Will we be confronted with NBC attacks? and 3.Will the President show some mature leadership without considering his "legacy"? I don't think anyone has the answers to these questions totally. As Flint so ably pointed out we have to be responsible for our own decisions and their bad or good fallout.

-- Neil G.Lewis (pnglewis1@yahoo.com), September 13, 1999.

Can we then say that we are going the way of Rome?

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), September 13, 1999.

The Man is blown smoke up our asses with Y2K. My achin' banana the computers is all fixed; I don't care how many times they shake it, that last drop could go right down our collective leg. Anybody that believes the Man could fix a badly fucked up system in only three days is on a 'MacGyver' fantasy trip. I'm headin' for the hills--try and keep the destruction of civilization down to mild roar.

-- Mr. Blond (favoring@f/f.cum), September 13, 1999.

Bardou,

Since I have solicited opinions from all directions and want to be careful to follow a good step forward with another good step forward, I'm not going to insist that people get more of my opinion. [smile] But I do appreciate your comments and imagine there is much common ground on which we agree, and ground that we can find friendship in.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 14, 1999.

A: "A species that longs for a Big Brother in the sky ("The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want..."

Say, would you give it a rest? How about slamming the Buddhists/Hinduists/Scientologists/Satan/ worshippers etc. for a change?

minnesota: "these will not be believed in advance to be possible (let alone probable) by the vast majority not due to the application of logic, but due to deciding whether or not these events have their PERMISSION to occur."

Therein lies the tragedy. We hope to create our own 'reality', until reality grabs us by the throat.

Stan: "Today, government seems but a poor mirror of our best and worst hopes, virtues, intelligence, and ability. Perhaps, it was always this way."

History bears this out.

farmer: "Why do we expect them (it) to tell us what to do anyway?..... .....so I depend on the government to inform me and look after my interests in these matters- but it doesn't. So where does that leave me? Disenfranchised. "

So many times I have shared this feeling of resentment and frustration. (Why can't they just stick to the basics of 'government? Why do I have to worry about the government lying, cheating, stealing and murdering....I'm busy enough...just living my life.... working at my marriage,.... trying to be a good parent....taking care of my parents....finding time to hear myself think some days....etc....but NO.... I have to carve out the time to remain informed on as many blooming issues, current events, and policies as possible so I won't get it from behind. Thanks for nothing Big Brother!

Flint: "For the Great Unwashed"

Anyone who begins expressing themselves with such a condescending label expresses much about his heart and soul. It is one thing to observe that people tend to be like sheep, for that in itself does not have to mean something derogatory; on the contrary, it can imply a certain childlike naivety and dependency, and a vulnerability to danger from being inherently trusting. The "great unwashed" clearly shows an elitist disdain for the inferior masses. I continue reading such a person's writings with appropriate skepticism, based on the probability that such pride will pollute their logic and viewpoints.

Stan: "We only hear rumors about this supposed war where the death march of programmers is our best hope to win this war in the nick of time. "

Flint: "Whew! I've read about death marches, but so far I haven't seen even a single case where a y2k remediation effort has entered a death march. Does anyone here know of a real death march already? Most I've heard is of cancelled/prohibited vacations around rollover.

lol.... I can only muster the small case for that attempt at humor. On the other hand, I see the imagery of Stan's post clearly. Yes, it springs from his 'belief' that without the programmer's efforts, we will suffer in unthinkable ways, and it speaks of the 'belief' that their efforts are doomed by the reality of time limitations, and yes, I would say that the policy of fix on failure brings a certain death march analogy to mind. How do you view fix on failure? Would you say that fix on failure is dependable, without grave risk, wise, efficient, guaranteed.... what?

Flint: "Indications are that (except for islands of ourtages, maybe) conditions will be messy but manageable, temporarily.......My sense of what you've written is that it suffers from presumption while making some good points...."

You were saying?

Flint: "More accuratly, they assure us that the "enemy" never really threatened"

This statement is quite preposterous and could be refuted by a kindergartner with average reading skills. Anyone who can read "numbers" will know that Big Business doesn't drop gazillions of dollars over a non-threat. There are more examples, but this alone should suffice.

Flint: "But without doubt, some have seriously pondered why this conviction remains so unshakeable in the face of large and growing evidence to the contrary."

Imagine that. All those captains of industry taken in by a doomer scam. Well, I'm sure the government will also be thrilled to view your massive documented pile of evidence so they can relax and donate their stockpiles to food kitchens, and convert their bunkers to national bed and breakfasts. And don't forget to share with all the other nations! Silly old worry wart Japan.

Flint: "dismissal of good news (it's self-reporting, it's government lies, etc.),"

In light of Waco, (which by the way, did not set an historical precedent, but rather affirmed the aforesaid tendency of corrupt government) how could you not reasonably and rationally apply an acid test of scrutiny to whatever comes from a source whose credibility is so critically compromised?

" to straight (and often profane) personal attacks against those who disagree or present good news."

This is unfortunate, and definitely not conducive to any productive communication.

Flint: " If this devolution is NOT the result of a sincere desire to see disaster come to pass, then it's simply a childish refusal to admit error, leading to an inability to learn from error......My sense of what you've written is that it suffers from presumption while making some good points...."

You rebut yourself so eloquently.

Flint: "there's also a darker side that cannot be honestly ignored -- the desire to see all those successful SOBs brought down to the level of the lowest common denominator so common around here."

Now the ugly head of elitist pride rears again. You presume to know the hearts of others. Feeling you have such a power, it's no wonder you feel you 'know' the outcome of Y2K.

Flint: "Except there probably isn't any war, nor any distance to go, nor sacrifices to make. In which case decisions to the contrary are not 'good' decisions"

You mock again, but you did not once supply concrete and documented examples to support your scornful attitude towards those who hold to a more concerned and cautious view. I find the basis for such mockery untenable in light of what is at risk. There are those who are not willing to risk what they are not willing to lose. Or are you having fun on the forum while privately hedging your bets? I think this could be your M/O.

"More speechifying, Stan"

And your verbosity was? Don't you know the value of "speechifying" at the right time and in the right place? I'm married to a marvelous engineer, but he has the depth and discernment to appreciate food for the soul. "The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing." ~Blaise Pascal

Flint: "Or, most likely by far, will it be the money already spent remediating and testing and making contingency plans and stockpiling?...... Andy will find a new conspiracy,... "

Hey Andy! Flint has finally joined the conspiracy group!

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), September 14, 1999.

Mumsie:
I thought "A species that longs for a Big Brother in the sky ("The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want..." is quite accurate. Your request..

Say, would you give it a rest? How about slamming the Buddhists/Hinduists/Scientologists/Satan/ worshippers etc. for a change?

I would gladly comply with except for typing effort.

Since most people in the U.S. at least profess allegiance to the Christian Big Brother in the sky, I mention Christianity first, then I may also take a swipe at the Jews and Muslims. But feel free to mentally add any religion, such as you mentioned, to whatever incomplete list of religions I may mention. Include also the "native american (PC term for Indians) religions, South Seas "cargo cults", Australian and New Zealand aboriginal religions, etc.

Don't take my attacks personally, I actually enjoy (?) most of your posts. My attack is on peoples' religious beliefs. If your faith is so secure, why get upset?

-- A (A@AisA.com), September 14, 1999.

A...you've read enough of my posts then to know that I wasn't really upset. Just thought asking you was worth a shot! :0)

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), September 14, 1999.

A,

Why do you attack people's religious beliefs?

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 14, 1999.

Stan:

You've expressed many opinions in your post. As Flint pointed out, many of your thoughts were based on assumptions that all agreed on part a and that part b was the question at hand.

You ask the question, "Am I right or wrong?". How can opinions be wrong? Opinions are based on what one feels is true at a particular point in time based on the data and one's assessment of that data.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 14, 1999.

Stan -- Why do I attack peoples' religious beliefs? Because, contrary to their protestations, they (most) 1) are busybodies, meddlers, and FASCISTS on a personal and community level, and 2) ditto plus supporters of religious wars and "ethnic cleansing" on a national and international level.

Regarding 1) -- blue laws, drug laws, porn laws, sex laws, drinking laws, gambling laws. They seem to think they have been personally annointed by their imaginary "god" to clean up the world. And nuke 'em like Sodom and Gomorrah if they don't comply.

Regarding 2) -- crusades, inquisitions, "witch" burnings, holocausts (including of Christian Armenians by Turks). Ireland, Lebanon, Middle East, Kosovo...

People can find enough to fight about, based on reality; I guess they figure they need a fuller plate, and so include battling about figments of their imaginations, also.

-- A (A@AisA.com), September 14, 1999.

Very eloquent, Stan, but unfortunately bad computer code does not care. Y2K could have been completely prevented; it was not. Y2K, at one time, could have been completely fixed; it was not. Y2K is a real problem for which there is no solution, because what work has been thrown at it started too late. (And if people like Flint still can't understand that, with 3.5 months until Y2K rollover, there is nothing that I can say here that is going to make any difference.)

What is going to be the impact of a world that cannot rely on its computer technology driven infrastructure? Nobody knows. You pays you money and you takes you chances.

And if, in mid-September 1999, anyone is still waiting for government action on this problem, you are truly living in fantasyland. Don't get me wrong, I think that the government has been very pro-active in planning for Y2K -- check out any of the Executive Orders that have to do with so-called "cyber-terrorism", substitute "Y2K" instead, and voila. Likewise, Koskinen and his spin machine, with help from the news media, certainly have been quite pro-active on Y2K. Its just not been in what I would believe to be yours or my best interests.

Y2K CANNOT BE FIXED!

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), September 14, 1999.

Stan:

Sorry to throw this back to the top for no apparent reason, but I'm unfamiliar with the term "spook". I understand how this forum defines polly, doomer, newbie, and lurker, but "spook" is a new one for me. Would you be so kind as to define?

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 14, 1999.

Anita:

My guess is that a spook in this context is a paid secret agent of some nefarious organization. Most likely, someone whose position violates Stan's assumptions about part a.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 14, 1999.

When I look through my magic screen here, sometimes half of the participants are covered in mud and whipped cream, while members of the other half are talking into their shoes.

-- flora (***@__._), September 15, 1999.

>>>>A species that longs for a Big Brother in the sky ("The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want...") and doesn't receive instant showering of manna from heaven turns instead to a secular Big Brother to make it all "nice". And, like children, they relinquish responsibilty whenever possible, which the government(s) are only too glad to assume.<<<<

Well said, A. Reminds me of some stuff from (among others), George Carlin, who puts forth that myths are powerful teaching tools...says something to the effect that: If you can get humans to believe in an 'invisible guy in the sky' who does such and such', you can get them to believe in anything. My experience has been with people is that those with heavy childhood indoctrination (from the cradle) in such myths, and those with crisis type conversions at later ages tend to be the most succeptible to later "mything" by governments and other groups that have as their agenda control and manipulation.

"If you're a baaad boy/girl, the (fill in the blank) will get you." A book I'm quite fond of on this subject is: The Demon-Haunted World by the late Carl Sagan.

--She in her sheet crying "no more fairy tales!"

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), September 15, 1999.