Ok, so the .gov is ready.

Scenarios:

1. All goes well and they got the job done and didn't lie.

2. Things go badly and problems are caused by real virus attacks.

3. They LIED and things go badly. .Gov blames problems on virus attacks when they are actually Y2K problems.

If we had a different Commander in Chief I would probably choose #1. But since we don't, I will go with #3.

-- 15 days, 21 hours Eastern Standard Time

-- the Virginian (1@1.com), December 16, 1999

Answers

Allright, Virginian, here is a comment.

Th USG has now painted itlelf into a corner, so there can be now y2k problems. But we will have many problems caused by domestic terrorists, foreigh terrorists, solar flares, hackers, viruses,hoarders, greedy businessmen, industrial incompetence, survivalists, international speculators, etc, etc.

But mostly we will have problems caused by a giant center fuel tank explosion.

dave

-- dave (wootendave@hotmail.com), December 16, 1999.

ROFLOL Dave. You left out Fundamentalist Christians I believe.

-- the Virginian (1@1.com), December 16, 1999.

One more comment, with spell check ON.

I consider the recent announcement by Clinton and the OMB of total y2k victory to be the most fearsome announcement made to date in this whole y2k experience.

The USG has given itself absolutely no wiggle room. Success is absolute and certain, with no possibility of error on their part. It cannot be true, yet these statements were made with no concern whatever for the consequences, as though there will be no consequences.

The administration is not stupid.

What is the government planning that eliminates all consequences for this (apparently) irresponsible set of claims?

dave

-- dave (wootendave@hotmail.com), December 16, 1999.

Dave,

"The smell of the Weimar Republic is in the air" ...

Gore Vidal circa 1992 (I think)

Personally I'm not so sure about Weimar...but some sort of totalitarianism is in the works...worse than Hitler or Stalin and probably ruling more than one country. It may be sooner rather than later too, or vice versa, but you know its coming in time. Tyranny has not died forever, it always returns.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), December 16, 1999.

Bennett has it figured out I suppose, the way the uS is gonna play it (From Loon's US Girds post):

The chairman of a Senate panel that studied the Year 2000 technology challenge, Robert Bennett, said the United States and its allies should be on guard for both physical and computer-generated attacks timed to coincide with the new year.

``We think there may be terrorist groups planning to ride in on the Y2K wave,'' the Utah Republican, who receives intelligence briefings, told Reuters. ``There is the potential for these groups to commit acts that may be mistakenly attributed to Y2K.''

-- Hokie (nn@va.com), December 16, 1999.

for all those who see conspiracy in the announcement of victory there is no conspiracy. just not real aware people wanting to believe all is well.

-- Noone (Noone@none.com), December 16, 1999.

"1984" was playing on TV the other night. Only caught the last of it, but thought the timing was great... what with the "War is Peace" slogans etc. I agree with Dave.. the pronouncements of total victory leave me very very nervous.

Something wicked this way comes.

-- Linda (lwmb@psln.com), December 16, 1999.

Noone, I would really like to believe you. In fact, you express my original position. However, I've come to conclude that Clinton is not stupid. Not at all. In addition, what's worse is Clinton is now disposable.

Just think. Suppose you had a job to do, a specialized job that required a very expensive, special tool that you had owned for almost eight years. This tool was very special because there was only room for one in your toolbox at a time. You could constantly work on building a replacement tool but this is difficult, too, because you had to work on several metal blanks for a number of years and only one replacement tool might turn out to be functional because of imperfections in your tooling process control system.

Well, here we are today. We can use Clinton the Tool on one, special task, a unique opportunity. If we use him to put the fix, we'll never be able to use him again, the tool might be broken. But, so what? These tools, as expensive and unique as they are, can only last for eight years' service anyway. If the payoff for putting in the fix is this great anyway, go ahead. It dosen't matter if we break the tool on this job, because Clinton the Tool is just about worn out anyhow.

Y2K is small potatoes. Clinton has always been about power. not money. Even his sexual appitites have to do with power. Rape is not about sex, anyway, it's about power.

Clinton does NOT CARE about y2k. Don't you understand? If y2k is serving up an opportunity for chaos like a snack on a sliver platter, so much the better. You/we care about y2k because we see that it could hurt us personally. Hurt our families personally. Hurt our society, country, national defense. These things represent a risk to us. They DO NOT represent a risk to Clinton.

It is not a risk to Clinton personally because he believes "he will be taken care of" regardless of how it turns out.

It is not a risk to the Presidency because the Office of the President is only important as long as it exists to provide a vehicle for the acquisition and exercise of power utilized for Bill Clinton.

The only risk of y2k for Bill Clinton is that this opportunity might be mitigated is some way so that his ability to exercise personal power is diminished.

ORDER OUT O

-- Magnolia (Magnooliaa@yahoo.com), December 16, 1999.

ORDER OUT OF CHAOS.

. . . . . . .. . . .

-- Magnolia (Magnooliaa@yahoo.com), December 16, 1999.

Magnolia, Your assessment is based on the premise that bill C. understands Y2k and is prepared to use it. my assessment is that he rally does not understand it ans is therefore not already prepared to use it in the way you describe. !5 days and we will find out which premise is closer to the truth.

-- Noone (Noone@none.com), December 16, 1999.

Yep, I'll go with #3. I was watching "Market Watch" on CNBC last week and they had two big time economist on discussing the effects of the FEDs massive injections of liquidity into the markets, how it was driving up the price of stock, and the conversation shifted to potential Y2K bank runs. One economist pointed out that people would mostly spend the money instead of redepositing it in the bank later, and the other countered with the statement that "They will only have three weeks to spend it". The other guy just nodded and they moved on to another topic. What the hell is up with that?

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), December 16, 1999.

I think at the end of Clinton's term, he will be deemed one of the worst U.S. Presidents of all time. And his lies of the y2k compliancy will be fuel for that fact.

-- Shawn (shawnagee@hotmail.com), December 16, 1999.

"Magnolia, Your assessment is based on the premise that Bill C. understands Y2k . . . " I view my premise as likely because the level of understanding is well within Clinton's grasp. Bill understood that the Red Chinese/ DNC could be a problem. His "level of understanding" was demonstrated by his action response - bomb those pesky Yugo factories.

Bill's y2k "level of understanding" does not require him to grasp any arcane level of detail, only "Does y2k, or the public perception of y2k, provide an opportunity of the exercise, demonstration or enhancement of executive power?" It's a simple "yes" or "no" response. So, is the threshold to this level of understanding low or high? My postulate is - a non-technical or low level threshold understanding of y2k is required. The emphasis, or slant, on understanding deals more with the potential for mass perceptions and political response. This is a capability that Bill Clinton has demonstrated he possesses to a high degree many, many times.

Can we make any observations?

(1) Bill responds to threats to his power/ego which derives in part from his perception of his popularity. His policy goals, while not created by polls, are tactically adjusted according to polls. The single most threat, dwarfing every other consideration, is the potential election of a Republican president acting in concert with a Republican-controlled Congress. The realization of this possibility is the single, greatest threat to his legacy. Period. Y2k pales in comparison. Government survives stockmarket crashes. Government survives and thrives in Depression. Government survives y2k, too. Get this clearly - if the Democrats are depending upon Gore, they're toast, and they know they are toast. They know this right now. The really dedicated ones get drunk/coked every chance they can right now just to help deal with the pain. They know they are going to loose under the current rules of the game.

2. For those with the guts to see it, the logic is very, very simple. The rules of the game are going to have to change. If Bill sees y2k as an opportunity to increase his power and provide him with a better opportunity to increase the odds for a Democratically-controlled government, how will he respond?

I think he will respond in ways that have been historically effective. Remember, Clinton is NOT neurotic. He does what he does and how he does it BECAUSE it works. His techniques get results and they get the results HE WANTS. Look at the Great Yugo Factory Bombing exercise. It shows technique development. I mean, look how much more sophisticated and complex the Yugo bombing was compared to taking out that African Aspirin factory? The boy shows real development. He's learning to handle harder, complex, logistic exercises. The majjik show is getting more impressive.

OK, back to business. ChinaGate and impeachment were a threat. The bombs rained on the Yugo assembly line on the SAME day the votes go down. But first, of course we had to understand that the Serbs were demons straight from Hitler's Hell, and we knew this because they: (a) were intolerant of differing cultural and religious groups and were (b) engaging in genocide and ethnic cleansing. Of course, we now know that US-led NATO action killed more people, did more damage than all those NAZI Serbs . . . but, so what - that's not really important here. It's Off Topic.

The fall of the Democratic government (or even the perceived risk of the fall) empowered by the potentially certain free, imperfectly-influenced elections next year is the threat. This is ALL that is left of the Clinton presidency that is important. Not some, but all.

Now comes y2k.

Understand - Bill takes this Republican/Democrat thing personally. Not because it's the party but because it's him - Bill Clinton versus "the other side." I know this might be hard for some people to grasp, but it's never been just a party thing for Bill. And, from Bill's point of view, a Republican victory isn't a Democratic repudiation, it's a repudiation of Bill.

So, how can this potential "y2k" thing help? Remember, the first rule of optimizing the opportunity is to maximize your leverage. From a technical point of view, this means that every possible effort that can be made to remediate critical (to Bill) government systems must be made. ('Critical' probably does not include the military.) Equally essential is that your potential political opponent's camp or support group not be supported or encouraged to remediate or prepare. Remember, it's not the amount of power, it's the comparative difference in the ability to focus and implement power that's important. This simply translates to one observable prediction. The government security and power apparatus works as hard as it can to remediate for y2k while always telling everyone else it's going be a "bump in the road" or a "three-day storm." This way, if y2k does turn out badly, the central government automatically stands to benefit the most.

"But wait, you say. All that means is more people will be mad at the government for lying to them." Not so, bozo. Today, the great mass of people give allegiance to who takes care of them the best. They may get mad (at somebody) at first, but who'll be in the best shape to take care of them? Or at least, seem to? Here's a clue - it won't be your local Presbyterian church.

The beauty of technique is it demands neither a great understanding of y2k nor any certainty in predicting outcomes. Bill can set up the game and it doesn't matter either way. No matter what happens, his potential to exercise power is maximized while the enemy is potentially rendered disorganized, disrupted and discredited in the ability to demonstrate any effective, national action.

OK. We know the threat - free elections next year resulting in a Republican president.

What is the proper attitude toward Y2K? Not "figure it out" but position your pieces to maximize your ability to potentially exercise executive authority over your enemies and increase your constituency. Remember, there are no personal consequences, no personal inconveniences, expected from Y2K for you or your family. If there's any gas, Bill will get it. If Chelsea needs a ride, she won't walk.

What's the first step in the setup? Well, we need someone to play the part of the Serbs. Let's see - they need to be intolerant of others' religious viewpoints, and they are engaging in the "genocide" of . . . hmmm... children - that's it - children. Now how can we put this together? We need the intolerant religious angle - so hand me a right-wing Christian, will ya? Thanks. Now, we need a children/death angle, so, gimme a gun - ok, good - now stick the gun in the Christian's hand. Ahh, we need to twist the whole thing a little more to the far right, so let's put some stored food in their basement. That's it, their HOARDERS, too. How much food to put in their basement? Simple, any amount over whats required for a 3 day storm makes em child molesters and hoarders. See - this way theyre abusing other children, too, by denying them food. You know, youre getting pretty good at this! Write this up for me in a report and give it a catchy name - how about Armageddon? No, shorten it to Megiddo. Yeah, thats good, nice Biblical touch!

Of course, we havent seen anything like what Im fictionally describing. Im sure that Bill Clinton means well, hes just misinformed and poorly served by unfortunate choices for political appointees. He has sooo many things to think about, what with all our active military forces out of the country spread all over the w

-- Magnolia (Magnooliaa@yahoo.com), December 16, 1999.

Magnolia,

Interesting analysis, but even Billy Jeff can't repeal the laws of nature. Much as he might try.

Software projects simply do not get finished on time. fed.gov has the most computers; the most susceptible computers; the least motivated workforce.

Your theory still rests upon the assumption that the government will be efficient enough to pull off his nefarious schemes.

Somehow, I think that the fed will be too disorganized itself to pull it off. Lord knows they'll try. And your scenario sounds like vintage Billy / Freeh / Reno. But I guess I'm optimistic enough to hope that it won't work.

The other alternative is too bleak to think about.

Jolly

-- Jollyprez (jolly@prez.com), December 16, 1999.

"The other alternative is too bleak to think about," Jolly.

I know it's bleak. Please try to get past the bleakness. I know I've turned over a rock and exposed an unpleasant sight. Now I'm making it worse by asking for volunteers to "hey, wouldja look at this - gross!" I'm not surprised everybody isn't lining up to pay admission to "look at this crappy pile."

Your criticism seems to be that the executive branch will not be able to project force because it's computing power will be destroyed. I say in the business of projecting force, it's again a matter of relativity at any point short of absolute, total universal systems breakdown. All the executive branch has to have is the ability to focus more force at any point than the opposing force, ie: constitutional liberty in this case.

 The executive branch is fundamentally in the business of projecting force or the threat of force.

 Traditionally, the most vocal opposition originating from the masses has been "give me my doggy yumm-yumms and don't inconvenience me" or how about a forcefully stated "leave me alone."

 The only functional 'immediate' redress to the individual in normal times to exeuctive power is the judical branch which is. Why didn't someone whip out a court injunction in Seattle as they were being hearded to internmemt areas where they were denied access to an attorney or telephone?

 The legislative branch is always a reactive "blocking" force to the executive, never proactive and by its "committee" nature cannot act swiftly and decisively.

Come on. We all know "they" didn't get the job done and all will NOT go well. Things will go badly due to several factors: real y2k problems, foreign and domestic aggression against infrastructure and citizens, and government (mis)management.

"They" have lied, if by that you mean "the intent to deceive." The executive will blame and create problems to whatever extend serves the interest of the executive. Topically, my point is protecting and enhancing power is and has always been, the most important issue to Clinton. It's more important than Chinese money. It's more important than gratifying acts of power over vulnerable women. It's more important than "national defense" and it's damn sure more important than Y2K.

The possiblity of a Republican victory and an idiological defeat is the greatest theat to Bill Clinton today and for the remainder of his time in power. What repulses you is raising the possibility that this fact overrides the one-horse issue of this politically naive discussion board.

From Bill Clinton's perspective, the single most important aspect of y2k is capitalizing on the opportunity to preseve power and insure the political survival of his ideological allegiances. What is abolutely terrifying is the demonstrated, sure knowlege that Bill will kill to protect his interests. Just be glad you weren't standing next to that Asprin factory with the cruise missles hit. Or a Serbian television station. Or a Chinese embassy. Or a railroad track near the Mena, AR airport.

. . .. . .

-- Magnolia (Magnooliaa@yahoo.com), December 16, 1999.

Magnolia, my complements on your analysis. The one possible dichotomy I see is between Clinton's desire to exercise power and his actions to weaken our sovereignty, the latter apparently undermining the former. Perhaps a deal has been cut whereby the finishing touches on world government would take place once he leaves office, which also would spare him the ignominy of that having occurred on his watch.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), December 16, 1999.

After years of Clintons work to ascend to the Presidency plus (almost) two terms in office exposed to the corrupting radiations of power, I believe it would be a mistake for me to apply my own rationality to the dichotomy you mention. The temptation to indulge in psychobabble is very strong, but I dont like the sound of my own voice that much. There are too many possible interwoven motivations and too few facts and observations to examine. Was it Madame Clinton who stated, Bill, how could you be so stupid, so stupid, when Bill finally confessed to her the truth regarding Monica? Not everything has to make sense.

Did Gorbachev cut a deal? Maybe, maybe not. Regardless, Gorbys post-USSR career seems to be more personally successful than Nikkis or quite a few other ex-soviet bosses. Maybe Gorby is a role model for the post-presidential Bill. Its a difficult stretch to see Bill swinging a hammer building Habitat For Humanity homes, so I think its safe to rule out Carter as a role model.

I have to tell you that on a personal level Im possessed of a deep sense of unease. Ive experienced a few pre-election seasons, but none have felt quite this unsettling. Its a feeling reminiscent of the days of Gerald Ford and David Rockerfeller, each occupying an office to which neither was popularly elected. Oddly enough, in a way I would feel much more comfortable if there were a truly strong Democratic candidate, someone Bill could visualize passing the torch to. Im afraid Bill sees himself coming to the end of his presidency in many respects alone. Hes reached his zenith and things do not look tidy. The lack of a strong liberal contender, someone Bill could relate to, leaves him without a handoff. The Democrats truly have no real affection for him, and can we say Hillarys affection is based in anything more substantial than utility? Can you visualize Bill playing golf alone, except for the company of a few sycophants, like some kind of political O.J. Simpson?

Can anyone tell me if our polling machines are Y2K compliant? How confident would you be in the reported results if your candidate looses by a slim margin? .

-- Magnolia (Magnooliaa@yahoo.com), December 16, 1999.

``We think there may be terrorist groups planning to ride in on the Y2K wave,'' the Utah Republican, who receives intelligence briefings, told Reuters. ``There is the potential for these groups to commit acts that may be mistakenly attributed to Y2K.''

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then by god, it is a duck!!

I don't really care what they call it, if my lights go out at midnight because some nut-cae blew up a transformer, then I've got a Y2K problem!!

We have a saying at work: "I don't care what you call me [title], just so long as you pay me!"

-- Duke 1983 (Duke1983@AOL.com), December 18, 1999.