I remember what I consider to be a profound observation presented in a novel that I read when I was 20 years old. The author, through one of the heroes in the novel, suggested the following notion. "If you present to me the woman a man chooses to sleep with, I will then, by focusing on the character of the woman, show you the man." Thirty five years later I am more convinced than ever of the insight offered by this proposition. I find at times, I am troubled by its personal implications.

With respect to Y2K, and the fact that I continue to believe it to be something of potential seriousness, I find myself to be "sleeping" with the skeptics. That in and of itself has made me more skeptical. It causes me to reflect on why I find myself to be intellectually "sleeping" with someone such as Gary North on the issue of Y2K. For if North is correct, and were he and I to survive the chaos and destruction he has preached is coming (for at least 25 years - only his most recent "doomsday scenarios" predicated on Y2K) he would represent the antithesis of what I would welcome as a "bedfellow." On the one hand my other values would assure him that I would "live and let live." However, by virtue (or more accurately by vice) of his, he would not allow me to do the same. He would judge me his enemy, to be dealt with as such

My reasons for continuing to believe that Y2K has the potential to cause many of the "numbers" on what has come to be known as the Y2K "0 - 10" scale, has little to do with the actual technical nature of the problem. The problem is understood and the means to correct it (money and intelligence) is available. Time however, as it relentlessly does with all things, has consumed itself and is now in short supply.

In this context my concerns arise in terms of the insidious subtlety that routinely accompanies software anomalies, and the difficulties often encountered in first finding, and then, without unintended consequence, fixing them. When combined with the long-standing and pervasive use of 2-digit year codes, my mind is relentlessly led to Murphy's law. Time and experience has taught me to respect the idea that if something can go wrong it very often will. On the other hand, with the freedom to do so, we humans repeatedly demonstrate a seemingly limitless capacity to solve problems and improve our lives

It can hardly be said that those of us "bedfellows" forecasting the worst of scenarios have established a credible track record. It is late in the fourth quarter, the 2-minute warning has been given, and as we approach the end of the game, it is now 3rd and goal and the Y2K "defense" has given up little if any yardage. Indeed, the Y2K "offense" has been repeatedly penalized for various "false starts" throughout the year. I myself had predicted that gold and energy prices would now be reflecting the increases in demand that I had expected, while the stock market would be reflective of a flight to security. Little if any of these things have occurred. So why do I still embrace the idea of potentially severe consequences being just as likely as not? For me, the answer is rooted in my assessment of the social/political state of our society. I'll give a seemingly minor but to me an instructive example. In my judgment it is but one of the subtleties associated with the reasons Y2K has generated little if any serious acknowledgement within the "legitimate" corridors of our institutions.

I live in Colorado. Earlier this year near Laramie, Wyoming, two brutal thugs murdered a young homosexual man in a particularly cruel and vicious manner. The news was presented as a huge local story, carried in all the papers and was immediately seized upon by the national media. The fact that you who are reading this post likely knows of the Matthew Shepard murder, and the facts surrounding the crime, bears testimony to the fact that the news media - individually and collectively, determined this story to warrant a high state of coverage, analysis, and speculation.

Daily updates were released from Laramie. There were Candlelight vigils. Numerous national and local television crews covered the funeral. Talking heads, pundits and all manner of public officials commented on it at every opportunity. However, the story did not even end at this "extreme" level of coverage

The story was then linked to the perceived need for "hate crime" legislation. We were shown nightly coverage of various proponents of this "politically correct" issue and the story (particularly the now more encompassing social/political aspects of it) was featured in Time and Newsweek. It has now culminated with the parents of Matthew Shepard traveling to Washington in support of the expansion of hate-crime legislation - all brought to us by those that have determined this to be an important issue of which we all must be made aware, and of which we are to be repeatedly reminded.

Contrast the above with the following:

On September 26, 1999, in the town of Prairie Grove, Arkansas, two homosexual pedophiles, reported to have been lovers, allegedly brutally and repeatedly sexually assaulted 13 year-old Jesse Dirkhissing. He subsequently died from being gagged with his own underwear.

This equally brutal and vicious murder did not even cause a "ripple" outside the town in which it occurred. Except for reading about it in my post, it will likely be an aspect of reality of which you will remain oblivious and therefore "unaffected." Such "ripples" are the norm when a politically incorrect story occurs.

This brings me to the following assessment.

The news organizations that among other things provide the "public response" on what constitutes "proper" moral/political awareness/discourse, constantly demonstrate that they have the power to determine what news becomes "News" and what does not. Like their PR counterparts representing people and other organizations, they "manage" the perception of reality to their ends. In so doing they merely reflect the fact that it has become an established if not accepted principle of behavior, that perception takes precedence over reality. I ask you. If my observations/speculations are reasonably reflective of reality in this context, how would anyone know if Y2K was to be a significant problem, one that would in fact cause potentially severe economic hardship? Which of the "bedfellows" that make up what we refer to as the media or PR offices would tell you and then back it up with evidence of it? Better yet why would someone in the current social/political environment be motivated to tell you? If they tried what would be the likely response to them? Why is it that there are seemingly few facts surrounding Y2K, just pronouncements? Certainly reality still exists!

The freedom that we have inherited in America is/ought to be most secured not by our Government, but by those that keep us informed about the goings-on in our society - specifically those that offer us information in a manner that underscores the values upon which our freedom depends. It is a frightful commentary that those established and "mainstream" institutions that are the vehicles informing us of such things, repeatedly demonstrate, on a far wider scale than the example I have given, that what will be worthy of examination, presentation, analysis, and critical evaluation, is more a function of politics than of anything else. (Those of you tempted to cite economics - i.e., what "sells" should reconsider your position. In my example above, which of the two stories carries the potential for more shock, sensationalism, or "market impact?")

With respect to Y2K and the now infamous "0 - 10" scale, we shall all shortly know with a high probability of certainty what premises and lines of reasoning, offered by all of us offering such things, were closest to reality.

If it is a BITR then the question for each of us is why? Was it because it was never anything to be concerned with in the first place? Was it just another problem that our wonderful market economy dispatched with hardly a "ripple"? Or on the other hand was it truly Armageddon but because of the reasoned and timely warnings of Yardeni, DeJager, Yourdon, and others, was it then widely acknowledged and properly dealt with in time? Will anyone offer inquiry into which of these two extremes of possible reasons is closest to the truth? Is/are some other causal factor(s) at work?

If it turns out to be far more severe then a BITR, then what will our answers be as to why? How could all of our institutions have failed to see the threat and properly report on it with appropriate coverage, analysis, and responsible inquiry? Why did none of them properly heed the warnings and instead through omission and commission adhere to the reassurances of those establishment voices raised in ridicule at the "wackos" who did heed the warnings?

In my judgment the above seemingly minor example of the murder of two innocent citizens offers much in the way of answers to these questions.

Finally, when examining our "bedfellows," what does it say about each of us. Those that make up some of the more "radical" perspectives on this forum are convinced of the validity of some patently absurd propositions. (Perhaps after reading this post some of you will include me in that list). If Y2K is severe, and because of your actions you do not suffer greatly but come through the difficult times "intact" (whatever that means), who will then be your "bedfellows?"

For me, as I posted back in April, I will be spending the coming Holidays with family (not all) and friends (not all). We will be enjoying ourselves with good cheer, good company, and regardless of what is to be, good times - in my judgment the stuff a good life is composed of. I will be thinking of some of my true "bedfellows" that I have come to know through their words on this forum - some with whom I adamantly disagree. I would nonetheless enjoy their company were they to be with me. I would be reassured by their presence. I wish them well.

Others, though allied on the issue of Y2K, cause me concern. For all of our sakes, I hope you and I are wrong.

With respect,

-- Dave Walden (wprop@concentric.net), December 15, 1999

Answers

Superb post.

I'll leave the question of "lessons" that might be learned from all this in the future. Given the way that the media rewrites both the present and the past, I'm doubtful that we will have the opportunity for this in a way that benefits our culture, no matter what happens with Y2K.

Let's take the most recent declaration of perception, or is it fact? President Clinton boldly declared that the entire government is, for all practical purposes, 100% ready. I know enough as a techie to know he, quite precisely, *cannot* know that or know anything remotely approaching that. IOW, it may hypothetically be true (amazable though that is) that .gov is ready, but his declaration of its "truth" is separate from any relation to the content of the statement. HE doesn't know, nor does anyone.

Consequently, Clinton's statement is a declaration AND a manipulation of perception, not a relating of fact.

But why shouldn't this approach be tried by raw pragmatists? Over the past several decades, it has proven effective (and INCREASINGLY effective) to declare the outcome one wishes for and define oneself as the person one imagines themselves to be (the Internet, btw, tempts us right on this forum to practice this) and "make it so" through manipulation and sheer chutzpah.

Many of us on TB2K have repeatedly made the claim that the "computers don't care" about perception. Indeed, they don't. Facts will out over the coming months, but even here, only to some degree. Whether Y2K IS a bitr of TEOTWAWKI (facts), it will be very difficult to determine those facts amidst the blizzard of perception- shaping that has become the simple, common coin of communication in our public spaces.

And, I might add, perception-shaping is almost as common in tiny rural towns like my own as it is in Washington. We have learned our lessons well.

And, I might add further, it is almost as commonly practiced in the smallest businesses and within the homes of families.

We used to call this "deceit" in the old days or, at least, back in the dark ages (the 50s and early 60s), when I was punished for any attempt to use such techniques myself.

As some know, I have become extremely sensitized to issues of "speech" (both on the Net and elsewhere) as I have watched the pre- rollover process unfold. I see the battle over speech and speech that MEANS somethings to be the preeminent battle globally over the coming decade, whatever happens with Y2K. In some respects, it may be too late to have an impact.

But it is imperative that we pierce through the "machine" to understand why all of us love to lie at the end of the 20th century. There may be a few conspirators externally but the conspiracy is internal to us.

And if you think I refer to "truth" and "meaning" merely moralistically or nostalgically, you completely misunderstand .... but this isn't my thread.

Thanks, Dave. Excellent.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), December 15, 1999.

"The freedom that we have inherited in America is/ought to be most secured not by our Government, but by those that keep us informed about the goings-on in our society - specifically those that offer us information in a manner that underscores the values upon which our freedom depends"

Y2K or not the above "those that keep us informed" is the reason for the treason. I knew a young journalist writing in the "Spotted Owl" logging area of Northern CA. He was certain the owl was doomed because of the lack of "virgin forest". When I pointed out the fact that a mutual friend of ours, a forest service guy knicknamed Bird, had taken my now exwife and two sons to view a Spotted Owl nest in the NON VIRGIN forests of Sierra county he replied, "I didn't know that!" We discussed a few other points of interest he said, "I never thought of that." Point being he was feeding us with BS he had been taught by other BS'ers and failed to do his research.

The people on this forum demand proof. You can't say, "A friend of a friend of mine is a friend of Art Devine."(from a song by Waylon Jennings) and expect to impress people on this forum, which is how it should be.

Thanks for an iteresting read.

-- Mark Hillyard (foster@inreach.com), December 15, 1999.

Dave; Thank you for putting into words the thoughts many of us have. How indeed do we find ourselves in the company we keep. As the time draws closer, i feel emotions that say things can't really go bad. still, I know they can. but why is it the so many i would disagree with agree that they will. thank god it is only two more weeks.

-- Noone (Noone@none.com), December 15, 1999.

Well Dave. I think I have the perfect word for the behavior of the press and politics of which you speak. I awoke this morning and although conscious of the fact that my dream a few minutes before had something to do with y2k, I couldn't remember the details. However, there was one mental leftover...the word for the day...OBFUSCATE. Is that a $10 word or WHAT! rofl

I can guarantee you that this is NOT one of the words from my regularly used vocabulary. It seems that this is exactly what you're describing above, and perhaps what's being confused or hidden is TRUTH. Thank you, I feel better now.

beej

-- beej (beej@ppbbs.com), December 15, 1999.

obfuscate ("OHB-few-scate" or "OHB-fus-scate") v.

origin: from the Latin "obfuscare" meaning "to be in the way" + "uscus" (old French) meaning "dark brown"

1. To darken.

2. To make obscure.

"Science may never be able to explain our ineffable fear of the alien among us. A fear which often drives us not to search for understanding, but to deceive, inveigle, and obfuscate. To obscure the truth not only from others, but from ourselves." --Agent Dana Scully, on the FOX television series "The X-Files"

3. To confuse or conceal.

"We know that on many occasions, advisers begged the Clintons to come clean, but, each time, they opted to lie or obfuscate." --Commentator David Brooks on NPR's "All Things Considered" (March 21, 1996)

from: http://www.parlez.com/word-of-the-day/

-- Risteard Mac Thomais (uachtaran@ireland.com), December 15, 1999.

Response to "BEDFELLOWS"

Yes, great post, thanks. The "news" is not news at all, but is only intended to tell you how to think. Same with opinion polls. When was the last time a national (or even local) story had ANYTHING to do with your own life (aside from the weather reports)? Brokaw, Rather, the Times, they are all simply opinion managers, working in tandem to create a false 'consensus,' whereby the Cultural Managers, the self-appointed elites, can accomplish their goals. Same with Y2K 'news:' it's all simply opinion management.

-- Rider (free@last.Amen), December 15, 1999.

A millenial gift for those who do not care.

http://civilliberty.about.com/culture/civilliberty/library/weekly/mcur rent.htm

-- minnie mumwage (MyShiftIsOver@KidsRUs.com), December 15, 1999.

When you went to the same schools, join the same country clubs, have wives who hang out at the same parties and kids who go to the same summer camps, you don't need an explicit conspiracy to account for the incestuous relationship between .gov, .media and .biz.

To put it another way, most them sincerely believe they are the only bulwark against the unwashed mass of barbarians.

As a counter-example and what it costs, Abe Rosenthal was recently canned ("retired") from the Grey Lady after decades of courageous reporting. This "Jewish agnostic liberal" (as he proudly describes himself) has been telling the truth about the Middle East, the China sell-out and worldwide persecution of Christians with increasing intensity over the past eight years. See you later, Abe -- this isn't news "fit to print."

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), December 15, 1999.

Response to "BEDFELLOWS"

BigDog, I thought I was alone in noticing that Abe R. had become a loose cannon on the gundeck of the Times. What about Maureen Dowd, wondering aloud this past spring whether Clinton was in fact the anti-Christ? Lo and behold, Gail Collins materializes, and Dowd has become an increasingly scarce commodity. Russell Baker fit in that category, as well: some of his columns tread dangerously near the curtain, behind which sits our Oz with his absurd greasepaint.

-- Rider (free@last.Amen), December 15, 1999.

DearDave:

There are so many good thoughts here that i can hardly add anything.

Concerning the media: Has anyone else noticed that they concentrate and shake to death stories about Christians? The JonBenet Ramsey case; the story about the young mother in one of the Carolinas who drowned her children, and others, come to mind; they also supported Clinton (a false Christian) because he espouses their political agenda.

Thank you, Dave and others, for such excellent posts.

-- Connie Iversen (hive@gte.net), December 15, 1999.

Well written Dave.

While the bias of the press is all too obvious, I believe it is a mistake to see a editorial conspiracy behind their PC articles and newspeak. In truth, they are still subject to the laws of supply and demand as the rest of us. (Proof: the number of dailies that have folded over the past few years.)

It is too easy to blame the press, as much as they deserve it. The real blame for news slant falls fully on the public who consumes their product without discernment or critical thinking.

The press will continue to sell opinion disguised as news as long as a willing public supports them.

Face it, JSP is fat, dumb and happy. As long as he gets prime-time cleavage and a few bills in his pocket, political awareness will stay at the level of civics 101.

-- Hawthorne (99@00.com), December 15, 1999.

As some of you know, I'm a journalist. There are a couple of impulses I see driving the media coverage of Y2K, one benign and the other not- so-benign.

First, the technical complexity of the issue overwhelms journalists, just as it overwhelms anyone else. A non-journalist can at some point say, "I don't understand it all, but my gut tells me this, and I'm going to act on it." Good reporters, however, have a compulsion to get to the bottom of the story. Their credibility is on the line in front of a large audience. In this one, of course, the bottom is utterly obscured until the event happens. Believe, me, I've tried to approach this journalistically, and if I were doing research for an actual story, I still wouldn't know what to write. So the reporters either (a) throw in the towel or (b) take the official spin. Sometimes those are one and the same.

The darker side of this is the palpable discomfort most journalists feel around Christians. Since many Christians have taken Y2K to heart and taken a high profile on the issue, reporters tend to shun the story. Even if their instincts tell them there's something there, the peer pressure of the newsroom environment probably discourages many from giving Christians that much ink or air time--unless it's in that smug, subtly mocking tone that we've all seen.

I'm sure there are other factors, but these are two biggies, IMO. Don't look for some giant conspiracy or secret government control of the media. Some may be government shills, but on the whole, the last thing a journalist wants is to be perceived as being controlled by his sources.

Thanks, Dave, for a great post.

-- Thinman (thinman38@hotmail.com), December 15, 1999.

This is an excellent, thought-provoking essay, which I believe stands on its own merits. I don't understand the references to Christians in some of the responses.

-- Judy (pdog@gilanet.com), December 15, 1999.

>The darker side of this is the palpable discomfort most journalists >feel around Christians. Since many Christians have taken Y2K to heart >and taken a high profile on the issue, reporters tend to shun the >story. Even if their instincts tell them there's something there, the >peer pressure of the newsroom environment probably discourages >many from giving Christians that much ink or airtime--unless it's in >that smug, subtly mocking tone that we've all seen. > >I'm sure there are other factors, but these are two biggies,IMO. >Don't look for some giant conspiracy or secret government control of >the media. Some may be government shills, but on the whole, the last >thing a journalist wants is to be perceived as being controlled by >his sources. > > Thanks, Dave, for a great post. > > -- Thinman (thinman38@hotmail.com), December 15, 1999.

Where to start Thinman...I'm almost speechless and my family would be quick to tell you that's an impossibility...sigh.

I'm truly saddened by your words, but will not shoot the messenger. You seem to state that although there's a story of import that may need to be told, it may not be pursued simply because of the religious beliefs of those who tell it. This is a sad day indeed.

You also say, "on the whole, the last thing a journalist wants is to be perceived as being controlled by his sources." What's more bothersome to me, is they obviously don't mind being controlled by their bigotry. How is it that the very beliefs that this nation was founded on are now considered so unpatriotic, unsophisticated and repugnant? I'm not angry Thinman. I respect you for your honesty. I'm simply glad the same situation didn't exist when Ben Franklin, Geo.Washington, John Adams and Thos. Jefferson were busy building this nation.

beej

-- beej (beej@ppbbs.com), December 15, 1999.

Like "information systems," the "media" are a vast, hetergeneous mix from "underground" web sites to USA Today (aka News McNuggets). The Fourth Estate is really an extension the free market economy. "News" is a commodity that is bought and sold. The mainstream media industry is largely financed by advertising from large corporate entities. The "big" media also fall under government regulation. Given the economic realities, the end result is not surprising.

"Info-tainment" is a product sold to a generally willing public. For example, Newsweek and Time are popular, though largely unsatisfying to any reader who has intellectual skills beyond the eighth grade. There are more serious publications out there, including some published outside the U.S. It is a challenge, however, to find serious journalism.

On the positive, it is still a marketplace of ideas. No matter what your interest, there is a huge number of sources... of every possible bent. If you think the media is monolithic, I can suggest a mindboggling array of alternative sources.

Unfortunately, until public tastes run to something other than pablum (or cheap sensationalism) we can expect little better from the nightly news.

As to your assertion, Y2K has made the mainstream media... and the alternative media. Is there an incentive to report Y2K? Of course... the end of the world is always good for a boost in market share. As noted in this thread, however, it is a complex problem and not very telegenic. Second, there are few "credible" experts speaking out on the problem. While I am skeptical of many experts, the consenus opinion is clearly that Y2K will not be an unmitigated catastophe. Having "experts" is part of the standard journalistic formula.

If you are looking for the Fourth Estate as envisioned by our founding fathers... it has never existed. American journalism has always been a rather seedy business, and you'd out loud at how similar the "yellow journalism" of the 1800s is to our current talking heads.

In short, I think you are hoping for too much of journalism. However Y2K turns out, someone will sell the story. And more than likely, it will be the story the public wants to hear... not necessarily the facts. You are a thoughtful pessimist, Dave... but I suggest a dash of cynicism regarding "all the news that fits."

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), December 15, 1999.

Ken -- In the "olden" days, journalism was indeed just as seedy. The problem in the "new-en" days is the pretention that journalists are dispassionate professionals just one step removed from the divine in their "objectivity."

Most cities used to have two or more papers. Each had a clearly defined position -- liberal, conservative, radical, ethinic, etc. Far from being ashamed of this, they would have thought it ridiculous to claim that the news was "neutral" or should be neutral. They knew the obvious common-sense truth that everyone has an agenda and that it is far better for all when agendas are open so they can be scrutinized with that in view.

In fact, it is one of the crowning ironies of our day (and psychologically fascinating) that the academic insistence on EVERYONE having an agenda (deconstructionism) at ALL TIMES is not applied first and foremost to mainstream media. It is the "secret that no one will tell".

Furthermore, there was a vigorous and independent muckraking tradition in American journalism in the MAINSTREAM press (again, on all sides) that was supported by the corporations that owned them because they held quaint philosophical notions about what they did that had not yet been erased by the raw calculus of commerce. Indeed, these were sometimes inconsistent with the profit motive, a naivete we have mainly corrected in our advanced state of pure greed.

I am far from urging heavy-handed regulation as a corrective. I don't frankly know what the corrective would be and, if there is one, it won't come from the top-down. I do have faint hopes for alternative media on the Internet over the coming years but the rot is elsewhere in the culture, I fear.

Indeed, today's media are "market-driven." Everything today is "market-driven", including the cost of human life and death. It is often wise to question the unquestioned assumptions of an era, since future historians usually rightly detect folly in them. it is banal but no less true to assert that public communications today have become greatly debased -- everyone signs up for that.

And then continues on as before.

Whether our approach to communication is an advance on generations who have preceded us or is the inheritance we want to bequeath to those who come after can well be sincerely questioned.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), December 15, 1999.

beej,

Just to clarify, I am saying this as a Christian who once worked in dailies but has since moved on to a "safer" place in the trade press.

-- Thinman (thinman38@hotmail.com), December 15, 1999.

S'ok Thinman. It must be especially rough to BE a Christian journalist and have to see and feel the bigotry first-hand. I suppose you can holler at the TV screen (my 7 yr. old asks "Who are you talking to?") and find comfort in the thought that perhaps they're just not seeing "it". That's more preferable than assuming they're just trying to ignore or snub a large portion of our population.

Again, thanks for your shared thoughts.

beej

-- beej (beej@ppbbs.com), December 15, 1999.

Dave Great post! I just wanted to add this.

I don't know where the values of Self Government have gone these days. What many are seeing in the backdrop of all of this potential Y2K disaster scene, a government welfare state being built inside of or instead of what was once a militarily bordered and protected free trade zone at its roots and a new definition of the role of government in everyones minds from the top down. For years it has been well packaged and sold by the media. It seems to be trying to spread its wings to embrace the planet. That's probably a bigger bite than the beast can chew.

I am extremely grateful to the military and police personel who keep us safe from thugs and foriegn invaders. Without them I could not have the freedom to pursue a life of liberty and prosperity without the fear of being destroyed by thugs and foriegn invaders. It has also led to the enjoyment of the individual freedom I have with all of the tech advancements that a free trade zone creates. I could not express enough appreciation for the protection that police and soldiers provide U.S. They are the real bargain that government gives us well worth the price. They put their lives on the line.

I hope beyond hope that it will continue. I don't want to see the freedom and prosperity end, but I don't see how its gonna go on forever with the direction its headed. I don't want to live like a hunted dog. Thats my polly hat.

But the invasion is not with arms. It has come from within by way of missinformation and missunderstanding.

Time to dig out my doomer hat. We don't actually live in a Constitutional Republic anymore. We don't have those rights, that our forefathers secured for people who could govern themselves. I've gotten use to it and have to live with the reality of it until it cracks its self up. I've got no interest in helping that along, because it is the only thing standing in the way of being up to my ears in chinese or russian soldiers. (no thank you) Even if it is a military protected welfare state.

I see so many living in the idealism and illutions of the past and the history they were taught in High School. We are living in a Plutocracy (rule of the rich) The power of self government was brokered, delivered and packaged by the rich to a pack of whining democracts who were delivering social welfare to people who do not govern themselves rightly. The welfare state is absorbing the economy that fed our military and technical achievements and whats worse is that it is obviously taking priority over our military. I don't feel comfortable with that.

It becomes so evident when the self governing (right wing radicals???) are preparing for disasters. The issues are all surfacing, underground by matured adults who take on real self responsibility for more than just a computer problem. They know that if government and the system can not continue to protect them or spoon feed them they will have to be responsible for doing it for themselves. Self government at the root.

I have a whole lot of hats in my closet for Y2K predictions, I change them everyday depending on the weather. Y2K is only a piece of a big puzzle. I am petty confident and hopeful that the plutocrats will and have the money and the power to keep it all floating for quite awhile. I'm not afraid of the recoil I get personally from minor failed warnings or the games intellectually handicapped children play with their labels. (I told you so)

The warnings that have been issued by guys like Yourdon, North, Milne, and the rest are probably holding it all together if its a BITR anyway. Paul Revere helped fix the problem. My hats off to them!!! Will anyone be unhappy if its a BITR? Not me. You won't thank those Jackass's on TV will you? Its nice to see the wakeup calls and nice to see the eyes opening! If your smelling rich rats its almost as convincing as if you had actually gotten the chance to see them in action and know for a certainty that they are real. The blind can't see? You can almost feel the rich rats scurrying to patch things up and you know they have a lot of Y2K holes to plug. They are probably just as blind as anyone here might be.

Wait, watch, listen, be patient and hope its successful or we could all be in a world of hurt. They have impressed me so far, how about you? Too much fun!

-- robert j. (crandalls@cableone.net), December 15, 1999.

Robert -- Thank you. This has a bit of hope of turning into one of those old-time classic TB2K threads ....

I'm in basic agreement with you. However, arguably we are only seeing the bold-faced public advocacy of a system that has been asserting itself in the U.S. and worldwide since WWI (the REAL TEOTWAWKI) turned history and values inside-out ... and, certainly an ever- greater visible percentage of our resources devoted to it.

The Internet offers a rare opp'y to take an end-run around the information controllers. Yet, who will have the courage to take advantage of it? And it will take years to rebuild a "grass roots" understanding of republic-anism (not "Republicans") before a challenge can be mounted to the spirit of this age.

If indeed it isn't too late ....

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), December 15, 1999.

I wonder if it all started when the machines became more important than the humans.

-- Amy Leone (leoneamy@aol.com), December 15, 1999.

Folks:

I tend to be cryptic. In my reading Dave dealt with two subjects in his interesting piece. One dealt with the "press". That subject was discussed at length in the following threads. The second dealt with the people who agreed with him on the possible consequences of Y2K. I believe that he suggested that [at least] some of these people held other ideas which either made him uncomfortable or made him question whether it would be advisable to survive in their company. Do you have opinions on that part of the piece?

Best wishes

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), December 15, 1999.

Z -- you're quite right. Y2K has made for strange bedfellows -- think Carmichael and North as a really nutty case. Dave seems to be implying that "North" is the "woman" in his analogy and that it might perhaps indicate something unpleasant about himself, if I follow.

I don't buy that. The marriage analogy is decent but it breaks down when extrapolated to intellectual issues.

I would also be careful before assuming that North's own views are as simplistic as his opponents assume. I am NOT a North-ite, btw. I don't believe Gary would view Dave as his enemy. That is entirely unbiblical, Old Testament or New Testament. However, better minds than mine have argued over such stuff.

On a somewhat different but perhaps related note, the coming years may see a number of seemingly odd alliances between the so-CALLED radical left and right (as labeled by the so-CALLED moderate center) around the world. Perhaps, the alliances are not so odd but reflect a core of unity developing around a set of still ill-understood but shared convictions.

IOW, I would suggest Dave might consider the convictions he SHARES with Gary North, without pre-assuming a demonized picture of the latter, as well as the convictions around which he differs. Perhaps he already has.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), December 15, 1999.

Large Dog:

I can't disagree with what you say. Maybe Dave will return and give us his opinion on the subject. Or maybe, this is someplace we don't want to go. Going around the sites, I've found people who hold opinions that are much more radical than North. Maybe, those are the people he is talking about. Oh well, maybe better left alone for the good of the community.

Best wishes,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), December 15, 1999.

BEDFELLOWS

Can I play with some words?

Many of the people on this site don't have COMMON SENSE. They have exceptionally GOOD SENSE or they would probably be watching T.V. or reading the daily funny's. If you wander out of the moderate center and away from common sense, is your life or your sanity really in danger? A few knats to spice up your daily camel?

I'm sure your all nice people, but I don't want to BED with anyone here, I'm not sleepy! I need fresh, new, live, creative, waking thought, from the right, left Cristians, Jews, Buddists, pollys, doomers etc. etc. I don't care who the messanger is. I'm in here running away from NONSENSE, from the trivial common vernacular.

A safe, orderly speech free zone is such a great place to live! Can you survive in that company?

-- robert j. (crandalls@cableone.net), December 16, 1999.