My local paper had a major article today from Senator Slade Gordon,WA Headline -Treat y2k as a national crisis and put vice president Gore in charge.

This article took up 3/4 of a page on the editorial page. Looks like another Senator coming on board.

Senator Gordon ended the article with these words. Without that leadership I can envision a scenario where the nation is in chaos, and the answer from Washington DC., will be to point fingers at each other.

Was unable to find this one the website, but I believe they are 1 day behind.

WWW.southcountyjournal.com

Maybe someone can do better than I on this. South County Journals area is South King County which includes Seattle.

Martin

-- Martin Thompson (Martin@aol.com), December 26, 1998

Answers

Slade wrote that June 98 - Glad to see they are finally picking up on it. Here is the full statement http://www.senate.gov/~gorton/y2k.htm

-- Whitney (Y2kWhit@aol.com), December 26, 1998.

Martin, this sounds promising! Diane, Leo, Whitney, Ed, all -- another Senator, pounce!

If some terrorist boldly proclaimed: On an exact day, prescheduled very soon, I will toast America -- destroy the infrastructure, cripple the electricity, disable the phones, render the military useless, plunge the country into frozen alienated darkness in the cruel depths of biting winter, do away with the government, turn the citizens into abject cannibals, slay 2/3 of your population, incite widespread uncontrollable looting, rioting, mayhem, and devolutionary disorder --
would our govt still be obsessively imploding over the Prez diddle dong? ?

NO !!! We Would Declar WAR. No holds barred, no stops, all-out 100% all-country blitz teamwork pound the terrorist enemy to dust.

Sadly Insane must be LOLTHP; will he get the last laugh?

Ashton & Leska, also in Cascadia (yo Martin neighbor!)

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), December 27, 1998.

I did not know this article was that old. It did not mention that it was written in June.

Why now?

Maybe a gaggle of articles after the first of the year.

Martin

-- Martin Thompson (Martin@aol.com), December 27, 1998.

Maybe our fruitcake gaggle of geese can distribute the gaggle of articles in their leaflet flyover?

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), December 27, 1998.

I still don't understand. By the "y2k hypothesis", the problem is "systemic", "unfixable", and "time has already run out". Therefore, WHAT can a declaration of WAR accomplish, other than panicking everybody and bringing on martial law ? What exactly and specifically ought the authorities to be doing, other than simply advising people, as the Red Cross and FEMA have done for years, to have some emergency supplies on hand (BestPersonalPrepList) ? Not that this kind of preparation would make much difference in a real InfoMagic meltdown.

-RC

-- Runway Cat (runway_cat@hotmail.com), December 27, 1998.

It is very tough to declare war on an enemy that is "Invisible to the Average Man".

The threat is everywhere, but the average man doesnt see it. No doors being busted in and scruffy looking people being thrown down and cuffed on TV. No unusually clothed, foreign accented people with guns on the nightly news. No mangled wrecks for the front page. Nuttin! How in the hell are ya gonna get this on Hard Copy? Ya cant. But those are the very folks who are going to get caught flat footed by this.

Until they see other people standing in line on TV, youre asking them to go on faith. Ya might as well ask them to declare war on UFOs. The most you can do now is plant seeds in their mind.

Oh, and be ready with your stuff, before too many of them end up Getting It while standing in line in front of the news crew.

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), December 27, 1998.

Wow. Just read Senator Gorton's editorial at

Solving the Y2K Crisis: A Great Opportunity for the Vice President to Show Leadership

Was this printed in its entirety in your paper, Martin? It is excellent! He is our ally. Print and hand to DGIs.

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), December 27, 1998.

Good ole VEEP Gore gets it? Anyone in a high ranking position who gets it and doesn't start an awareness campaign is a traitor. The prez is a traitor. He got it late '95/early '96 and didn't do squat. They're YOUR leaders, folks. Full of integrity, honesty, morals...NOT. You see, they have a place to go to get away from it all. Actually they have 96 places to choose from. How many places DO YOU have to go when TSHTF? Are you getting mad yet?

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/360/nation/Bunker_mentality+.shtml

-- kk (y2krispykritter@yahoo.com), December 27, 1998.

Leska

Slade Gordons article was printed in its entirety with slightly different headline.

Martin From the great Northwest

-- Martin Thompson (Martin@aol.com), December 27, 1998.

I am at least moderately distressed by the current fashionable "War on _______" hyperbole being bandied about our government (war on drugs) and, now, on this thread (war on Y2K). Something about alluding to "war" seems to justify pressures on personal freedoms as ennumerated in our Constitution and verified in national custom and practice.

While I know that reasonable people, which include most contributors to this forum, understand that hyperbole is an overstatement of the case, many less thoughtful citizens might conclude, if a "war" is declared on a national problem, that it might justify unconstitutional actions and attitudes.

Be mindful of your hyperbole. Someone may take it seriously.

Hallyx

"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups."

-- Hallyx (Hallyx@aol.com), December 27, 1998.

RC, Uncle Deedah, & Hallyx,

I respect, understand, and agree with all your concerns re the hyperbole of "war" word re Y2K. Please note how I brought up that word:

"If some terrorist boldly proclaimed:
On an exact day, prescheduled very soon, I will toast America --
destroy the infrastructure, cripple the electricity, disable the phones, render the military useless, plunge the country into frozen alienated darkness in the cruel depths of biting winter, do away with the government, turn the citizens into abject cannibals, slay 2/3 of your population, incite widespread uncontrollable looting, rioting, mayhem, and devolutionary disorder --
would our govt still be obsessively imploding over the Prez diddle dong? ?

NO !!! We Would Declar WAR. No holds barred, no stops, all-out 100% all-country blitz teamwork pound the terrorist enemy to dust."

This was imagining a reactionary govt declaring war against a terrorist/group threatening to do what Y2K might. Our govt has a recent history of declaring "war" to sound like they're really attacking a problem. And if Americans were hearing a terrorist say these things, chances are Americans would revv up & rally to root out, stop, and defeat such terrorism. I was not suggesting we declare a War on Y2K, because it's a self-inflicted stupidity with auto-trigger guerrilla computer assassinations. War doesn't fit.

I do think globally there should be an immediate official declaration of a:
State Of Preparedness

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx x

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), December 27, 1998.

What we were saying was, if a terrorist/foreign country were going to do Y2K-like devastation, the USA wouldn't allow it. We were trying to illustrate the contrast of the non-actions/declarations re Y2K v.s. a theoretical terrorist announcement w/ govt reaction.

Those in the future who look back on our "leaders'" present/past [non]actions will see that the concern dominating minds was not the upholdment of the nation's Constitution so much as propagating the nation's short-short-term economy at any + all cost. The historians may well say, "It was not the Y2K "bug" which brought them down, but the perspective that financial gain, and the type of security it proclaimed, was believed to be the foundation of character, freedom, and everything else the nation stood for."

One irony here is that blindly adhering to the false promises financial security gives is part of what made this happen.

Ashton
mmmmmmm mmmmmmm mmmmmmm mmmmmmm mmm

-- Ashton (allaha@earthlink.net), December 27, 1998.

The senate IS going to have the worlds focus on them coming up soon. Im getting my e-mails ready now.

Diane

Oh, BTW there is a fascinating editorial on bureaucracy, which illustrates why it's hard for a government to act rather than react at:

Why bureaucracy will likely destroy America by John Silveira http://backwoodshome.com/articles/silveira50.html

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), December 27, 1998.

I have printed out several articles from various people willing to put themselves on the line by warning us in advance of what we may be facing: Yourdon, Yardeni, North, Olmsted, Senator Gorton, etc., Then if y2k is a big deal, I'll have documentation for my grandchild. I don't want him to believe the spin that may be put on after the fact. Also, I can say, "I told you so," to the DGI's. But, if it's only a blip, no problem. I'll send the paper to the recycler.

-- gilda jessie (jess@listbot.com), December 27, 1998.

Before you trust the fate of this republic to Al Gore, re-read the response by Gore (compared to Clinton) to the advance warnings given to both in the 1995-1996 time frame. Best historical sequence of this is in the recent Vanity Fair article.

And I am pleasantly surprised by the scope, extent, and depth of this article. It's a keeper - though I'd never figure I'd say so before this issue. Next magazine to GI? National Geographic? Popular Mechanics? Popular Science?

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), December 27, 1998.

Robert

I found the description of Al Gore's slow up-take on Y2K very telling. He was a real Don't Get It. I wonder if he does now?

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), December 27, 1998.