This is more a rumination than a treatise. In the expected aftermath of the Senate show-trial, I tucked my kids into bed and stayed up late reading Bill Kaufman's great book 'America First,' chronicling the failure of so many brilliant Americans to thwart the rise of Empire and the loss of the Old Republic. The history is fascinating: the battles fought, the speeches made by Henry Adams, William Borah, Robert Taft, 'Lucky' Lindy, Alice Roosevelt, John Flynn, Garet Garret, Robert McCormack, blind Sen. Thomas Gore (of Oklahoma, not the other one) were the same that are being fought today. But it makes for sad reading, and, I'm afraid, only further convinces me that all we're doing now is fighting a desperate, rear-guard action against the surging forces of global imperialism (the NWO crowd, if you like). Look at how they pilloried Pat Buchanon for daring to speak up for the rights of American workers; he was smeared with the same brush they use to smear every pro-American, freedom-loving group. The very word 'patriot' has been turned into a term of derision. 'Freemen' are criminals, targeted by the American Gestapo. They targeted Randy Weaver, an ex-Green Beret, for the 'crime' of wanting to raise his family apart from the mad crowd. And the minions of the National Security State continue to heap abuse on those of us who yearn for self-sufficiency, who harbor in their hearts a yearning for the ideal of Jeffersonian democracy, a nation of self-sufficient men who assemble as equals, not as frightened serfs to the techno-terror state. I am heartened by words I read here, and elsewhere: words worthy of Thoreau: people are turning off their tv's, tuning out the voice of Big Brother, and wondering aloud how to take back society, so that people aren't in thrall to the Perpetual War State, aren't crushed forever by the 5 trillion dollar debt owed, don't have to worry about the knock on the door in the middle of the night by some American Gestapo run amok. I hear the voices on this forum that hope to retreat to some rural fastness, where they can wait out the coming chaos, hoping that Y2K will crash all the Gestapo systems so that they'll be left alone to build it over again, the right way. But is it even possible (barring a much-hoped for deus ex machina event)? Will America simply slide into an Orwellian nightmare of ID chips, food lines, GPS monitoring, peopled by a disarmed populace who've forgotten the meaning of freedom? (the darkest answer to Cory's question: you know Y2K is bad when the ban the movie 'Braveheart.'). What say ye?

-- Spidey (in@jam.com), February 13, 1999

Answers

The death of freedom, is a death by a thousand cuts. Some are so small we don't even notice them. That is the way they have chosen to end this expirement called America. Bit by bit they take away the freedoms we once had. They implement taxes the same way. First it was tax the income of the "rich", now a guy making $5./ hour has to pay at least his half of SS tax almost 8% of his gross. Taxes too high on tea?! Ha,ha everything we buy is now taxed. Half the price of gasoline is tax, etc... Play their game and become their slave.

-- Bill (y2khippo@yahoo.com), February 13, 1999.

Are you people serious?!? Christ, you're talking like we're about to be taken over by the Soviet's or something. I just say it once: THERE IS NO GRAND PLAN BY FEMA/UN/CFR/TL/NWO TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD. If there was (considering how long most of them have been functioning as a group) THEY WOULD HAVE DONE SO By NOW. So, put away your books and pamphlets from the 60's and 70's and start trying to solve the problems, not just inflame others over it. Didn't like how Waco was handled? Write your Rep, don't blow up a goddamn building. The Freemen were handled the way they were BECAUSE of paranoids like McVeigh. Don't join them in that paranoia, k?

-- Hojo (Hojo@aol.com), February 13, 1999.

read 'atlas shrugged' by ayn rand. then go back under your bridge, troll.

-- JGB (bb@msn.com), February 13, 1999.

"I just say it once: THERE IS NO GRAND PLAN BY FEMA/UN/CFR/TL/NWO TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD."

I don't think there has to be an organized plan for it to happen. Take honey-bees, by analogy. Clearly, they don't sit around in meetings much (no coffee), but they sure do a heck of a job producing a hive.

In a similar manner, the changes in the world this century are resulting in the NWO so many of us fear. The evidence is in, regarding the result. It doesn't matter so much why - it IS happening.

The anti-NWO types (like me) want to see lots of little hives (countries). The "one-big-hive" busy-bees are winning, though...

-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@Anonymous.com), February 13, 1999.

[snip blaspheme]

"I just say it once: THERE IS NO GRAND PLAN BY FEMA/UN/CFR/TL/NWO TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD. If there was(considering how long most of them have been functioning as a group) THEY WOULD HAVE DONE SO By NOW.

Yes, we read what you said, but unfortunately, your saying it doesn't make it so. Got proof?

"So, put away your books and pamphlets fromthe 60's and 70's and start trying to solve the problems, not just inflame others over it.

Hey, dumb-ass, have you ever thought that talking to others about it is the best way to start? Adams and Taft predate the 1960's by quite a bit. [Note: a Y2K forum and this guy still uses non-compliant dates.]

Now, the original post was excellent reflection on the way our country, from it's very inception, has drifted away from the concept of liberty for all. Writing your congressman, especially after the recent debacle in the Senate, has been shown to do absolutely zero without enough groundswell support to get the attention of those people.

If you have something intelligent to add, we'd like to hear it.

-- a (patriot@dreams.net), February 13, 1999.

Hojo,

Amendment IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If you take a mortgage out on a home in Calif. you are taxed @ 1% of the total value of the (bankers) home. The banks still own the home and the new [owner] is ordered to pay taxes on that which he does not really own. How is this fair and reasonable? How can you say that you are "secure"? Seems to me a very insecure thing to even say..."I own my home!", when the fact is the government will take it away from you and sell it to pay any property taxes etc. if you either cannot or will not pay the taxes.

Do you think this is fair?

-- Freeman (freeman@cali.com), February 13, 1999.

Well, what to make of this? Kingsville, TX.,dark-30. A flock of Army Helicopters roars into town with no warning to the population at a low enough altitude to take out a power line in the process. Citizens are terrified to hear full automatic gunfire and grenades exploding over the roar of chopper blades and the scream of jet turbines. Powder flashes and flames illuminate the night as richochets and schrappnel scream through the air. Wait... LIVE AMMO? THese as...... were firing live ammo in the dark amongst completely uninformed civilians? In Texas? Yep, reports from town citizens say buildings were riddled with bullet holes and windows blown out. A reporter on the scene had his camera confiscated. Where IS the mainstream media on this story? But wait, there's more. Kingsville Tx. is so named because of it's proximity to the hugely famous King Ranch, which has multiple ties to the Exxon Oil co. King Ranch has been actively recruiting "hired Guns" including militia, mercenary, and off (or on) duty police officers for a private security force. Being a Texan I can unequivically staate that if unknown parties start disharging machineguns and grenades outside my house at night they will recieve return fire. Now presumably most if not all of that private security force accumulated by King Ranch live in Kingsville. Given the constant pressure the gov.org has been putting on militia groups and patriots what are the odds this whole mission was calculated to erupt into a gun battle between locals and the military?

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), February 13, 1999.

Nikoli:

"Yep, reports from town citizens say buildings were riddled with bullet holes and windows blown out. A reporter on the scene had his camera confiscated."

Got an URL for this or did they confiscate his typewriter also?

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

Did it ever occur to you that Y2K can also be a way to "find" the United States again?

Creaty Community ... the growing groundswell can impact a very big "voice" on how things are "new and improved" in this "brave" new world.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), February 13, 1999.

Here is one article. There were several, from different sources:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_exnews/19990210_xex_what_happene. shtml

-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), February 13, 1999.

'Atlas Shrugged?' I read it when I was 17--what's your point? I liked the review of the book Whitaker Chambers (rmembr him? The guy who fingered Alger Hiss (who cowrote the UN charter) as being a communist spy, along with Harry Dexter White in Treasury and many others--seems there was this conspiracy, see...) as I was saying, Chambers wrote the review of A.S. in National Review in...1957? Said that from every page a loud voice called "to the gas chambers go!" I'm afraid Rand's utopia of a world free of altruism doesn't appeal to me, now that I've had kids (something Rand never managed to do, despite all the heroic couplings of her Aryan heroes in Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, We The Living). I guess Rand would say that parents care for their kids out of "self-interest." Anyway, I'm not trolling (what IS a troll, anyway? Is it like "chumming?"), just wondering what a bunch of heads-up types think on this. --------in the words of the late, great Edward Abbey: DOWN WITH EMPIRE/UP WITH SPRING!

-- Spidey (in@jam.com), February 13, 1999.

I know a man (no names) who is a billionaire and he told me months before the election that Clinton would be elected president. How did he know? As you have said there is a plan and the world is controlled by a select few. He also said that because the rest of the world could never be raised to the standard of America that eventually America's standard would be lowered. I won't debate this point because many of the other things he told me have come true. I am not looking for a fight and I must admit, at first I did not believe myself, however the things he said have proven so true. The nail has been hit on the head. Nuf said! Tman

-- Tman (Tman@IBAgeek.com), February 13, 1999.

"He also said that because the rest of the world could never be raised to the standard of America that eventually America's standard would be lowered."

I agree with this prognosis. That is why I fight 3rd-world immigration. In a previous post, BTW, I said that 90% of LEGAL third- world immigration (not counting illegal & amnesty) is 3rd-world. I was wrong - it is 85%.

If the "big boys" have already decided on NWO, though, I guess we should all just bend-over and enjoy...

-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@Anonymous.com), February 13, 1999.

Teach your children. Teach your children. Teach your children. Jealously guard the history they are taught in school. Get details. Teach them to THINK, not just to memorize 'facts'.

It doesn't matter what you think of NWO. Our founding fathers KNEW we had to always guard our freedoms, for they could be taken away. Even foreigners can GI....

"The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are Constitutional rights secure." --Albert Einstein (he escaped a place where it DID happen)

No one ever thinks it could happen to them. If your bogey man is NWO fine...defend the Constitution. If your bogey man is a liberal/conservative fine... defend The Constitiution. At the very least teach your children. We still have a voice, at least for now...

These are the issues that face EVERY GENERATION of Americans.

-- Deborah (Godbless@america.usa), February 13, 1999.

"He also said that... the rest of the world could never be raised to the standard of America"

Whyever not ? Did he give any reasons why, or did he just state it ? I have read a lot of books that would disagree with this e.g.

Critical Path by Buckminster-Fuller The Turning Point - Fritjof Kapra

I would recommend anyone with an interest in Global Development to read these two books.

Saying things like 'it can't be done' is not helping anyone - we as a race can achieve great things !

-- (me@somwhere.com), February 13, 1999.

What say I?

The Republic is dead. Long live the Empire!

By the way, a, the Corpus Christi paper carried an article on the Kingsville, TX... ummmm, "fiery urban combat drill" (their words). It was at

http://www.caller.com/autoconv/newslocal99/newslocal344.html

-- Darth (Darth@Vader.org), February 13, 1999.

That information came from Frugal squirell's patriot forum and the shortwave radio. Drop over and check it out, they have several threads going on it.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), February 13, 1999.

Hojo: This IS the Soviet Union.

Me: The rest of the world cannot be raised to the standard of living (consumption) of the U.S. (and Europe). Pollyanas like Buckminster Fuller, et al, forget "little" problems such as economical resource availability and waste disposal. Anyone who thinks the rest of the world can be "raised" without tremendously increasing the ecological destruction of the planet has their head up their wazoo.

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

Nik,

No it didn't, not that it matters much. They might be repeating the same info but that's not where I got it. I went looking for local newspaper stories after I saw Bresnahan's piece in WorldNet Daily, as a matter of fact, and found the _Crier_ piece on Wednesday. The first _Crier_ story is still in place, by the way.

Also there is a current (Feb. 13) report of new "disruptions" in nearby Port Aransas, TX from similar exercises. The url is

http://www.caller.com/autoconv/newslocal99/newslocal373.html

-- Darth (Darth@Vader.org), February 13, 1999.

California seems to have already undergone a significant change:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and- a.tcl?topic=TimeBomb%202000%20(Y2000)

Long-live the Empire!

-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@Anonymous.com), February 13, 1999.

Somebody mentioned the national debt in one of the early responses to this question. Interestng thought popped up at that mention: "What happens to the national debt in a serious Y2K crisis?"

Keep in mind that as far back as the Reagan and Bush administrations, there were calls from some congressmen for a "declaration of National Emergency" to use as a method to wipe out the national debt. Now as a nation, we face a crisis of our own making that may give us that opportunity, wherher we want it or not.

Additionally, since most US currency is out of the country at any one time, it could get "written-off" at the same time as well. Hmmmm...

I wonder what kind of jockeying for position to make those decisions is going on now or will go on, as we go into our Y2K nosedive?

WW

-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), February 13, 1999.

Wrong URL - sorry...here is the right one:

http://www.americanpatrol.com/CALIFORNIA/whitesminoritynow02129 9.html

-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@Anonymous.com), February 13, 1999.

JGB,

Ayn Rand was so impressive I was blown away... at first. Then I gave it some deeper thought. Towards the end of Atlas Shrugged she becomes repetitive to the point of frenzied ranting. Her characters are inhumanly perfect, and to attempt to emulate them results in our parents' generation style of burnout. Rand was brilliant, but defective. Best to pursue moderation in all things.

-- mabel (mabel_louise@yahoo.com), February 13, 1999.

The third world doesn't need to immigrate. If we don't give them what they need, they are going to blow the crap out of us and TAKE it. If you were living under the conditions in which Russia and North Korea are now living, you would be contemplating the same action.

-- (@@@.@), February 13, 1999.

Anonymous99,

Que es la problema? California, y todo el mundo, es muy pequeno. Verdad?

There is room for many diverse groups, residing, side by side, with respect. (Lot of work to be done on learning that lesson everywhere).

Our state history has long been interwoven with Mexico and Spain. Besides we still love a good burritto!

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), February 13, 1999.

in the words of the late, great Edward Abbey: DOWN WITH EMPIRE/UP WITH SPRING!

-- Spidey (in@jam.com), February 13, 1999.

Spidey,

I like your attitude.

Just planted the last fruit tree for the year, Double Delight Nectarine. Been trying to figure the Daffodills, must be ten to twenty thousand of them popping up on my 5 acres. Gonna be a beautiful sight. Let it Spring, and the hell with the go'ment.

-- Freeman (freeman@cali.com), February 13, 1999.

Spidey, I truly think Pat Buchanan is one of the most repressive, hate mongering people I've seen. But I think we have a mutual interest in Edward Abbey. He was wonderful. I love this quote, "The more corrupt a society, the more numerous its laws."

-- gilda jessie (jess@listbot.com), February 13, 1999.

Atlas Shrugged: A simplistic, shallow and tortuous rant against Communism as it was perceived in 1957. Peopled by selfish, arrogant, two-dimensional characters, it contains not one sympathetic character in all of its 1100 pages.

Rand, a history major with a minor in philisophy, continually demonstrates her ignorance of political science, economics, engineering and sociology. Her apperception of interpersonal relationships is self-involved, egocentric and puerile.

The arguments highlight a battle of straw-man against straw-man and, by reducing everything to either black or white, insults the thinking reader who has any appreciation of the complexity and subtlety of socio/economic systems. To title that most subjective philosophy as "objectivism" is the height arrogance.

After all the recommendations recently, I slogged through it again after having read it 40 years ago. As a boost to the self-esteem of overly-bright but insecure teenagers, it may have some small value. But I would hope that most people put away the things of a child, as they mature and more fully understand the complex interrelationships of the real world.

Hallyx

And this our life, exempt from public haunt, Finds tongues in trees, Books in running brooks, Sermons in stones and good in everything.---'As you like it' 2:1 William Shakespeare

-- Hallyx (Hallyx@aol.com), February 13, 1999.

Whyever not ? Did he give any reasons why, or did he just state it ? I have read a lot of books that would disagree with this e.g.

This is what he told me "The powers that be realized the there are just not enough natural resources left in the world for everyone to have a car, house or the other items that Americans own". These are not my words this is what he said. The guy gave me the creeps to be honest with you. He also said that the people in charge considered us FEEDERS because they have to feed us. We the people are just a means to an end. Remember these are not my words.Tman

-- Tman (Tman@IBAgeek.com), February 13, 1999.

Thanks, Hallyx, for setting me straight after all these years of Objectivist propaganda. To think that I actually believed that a person had the right to keep what they earn, that logic and reason solved problems better than emotion, that those who created wealth through their own intelligence and hard work were more worthy of my respect than those who confiscated it. What a fool I've been! Victimized, you might say. In fact, I've suffered for years with these delusions while you outgrew them in early adulthood! IT'S NOT FAIR! YOU OWE ME! YOU OWE ME A LOT! How much do you owe me? Enough to make me feel better about myself. I'll let you know when I've taken enough from you. After all, self esteem is important. You know, I think I'm beginning to like this whole wealth redistribution thing...

-- YourFullName (email@ddr.ess), February 13, 1999.

"Que es la problema? California, y todo el mundo, es muy pequeno. Verdad?"

Oh great - now I pissed-off Diane, one of the best posters here. It is a complicated world, and I seem to be a bit too simple...

-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@Anonymous.com), February 13, 1999.

Anonymous - you'd be surprised how many folks don't care what color a person's skin is - you'll never justify your little race war that way...or any other way either.

Hal,

re 'atlas shrugged' I agree entirely with your analysis. The difference between Ayn Rand's writing and Leo's is that Leo has more compassion, and at 18 can be counted on to mature further as he grows older.

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), February 14, 1999.

Regarding the link by Anonymous99...

"For the first time in California's history, racial minorities are in the majority in the state's populations. CBS 2 News' Lance Orozco said East Los Angeles is a good example of the state's changing ethnic landscape."

This must be a completely bogus bunch of bull or bad journalism to the extreme.

This area has always been made up of a wide and diverse population. Specifically, there has always been a wide majority of hispanics in the East L.A. area. More specifically, the city of Los Angeles predates the "state" of California and was here as part of Mexico. It was founded by Mexicans. East L.A. has "changed"? Not even. L.A. has always had a huge hispanic population. The true beauty of Southern California, IMHO, is the diversity of it's people.

The numbers in this "article" do not relate at all to the city of Los Angeles. Perhaps they do when they take the state as a whole.

Mike (a man living in Southern California of Spanish heritage who can hardly write or read or speak a word of Spanish... too bad! I can write "yo no tango tiempo para te") ===========================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), February 14, 1999.

Arlin:

The primary difference between what I write and what Rand wrote, is that 95% of what I write is "action for the masses"; a literary means to a monetary end. For example, the reason I'm online now is to gather information about the Iran-Iraq war for my latest piece; the start of a series about Sam Weller, a good-guy mercenary in the mid-80s onwards, who travels the world getting involved in various historical events (Iran-Contra, where he stumbles upon something that was never revealed in the famous trials); the second one is going to involve

-- Leo (lchampion@ozemail.com.au), February 14, 1999.

YourFullName wrote: To think that I actually believed that a person had the right to keep what they earn, [depends on what you mean by "earn"]

that logic and reason solved problems better than emotion, [depends on what you mean by solved..depends on the problem]

that those who created wealth through their own intelligence and hard work [depends on what you mean by create...depends on what you mean by wealth]

were more worthy of my respect than those who confiscated it. [depends on what they had to do to obtain that wealth and what effects their actions had on other people and the environment]

This displays the same kind of short-sighted, self-centered, black&white thinking expounded by Rand. The rest of your sarcasm wasn't even amusing enough to comment on.

Hallyx

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."--- H.L. Mencken

-- Hallyx (Hallyx@aol.com), February 14, 1999.

Arlin: The primary difference between what I write and what Rand wrote, is that 95% of what I write is "action for the masses"; a literary means to a monetary end. For example, the reason I'm online now is to gather information about the Iran-Iraq war for my latest piece; the start of a series about Sam Weller, a good-guy mercenary in the mid-80s onwards, who travels the world getting involved in various historical events (Iran-Contra, where he stumbles upon something that was never revealed in the famous trials); the second one is going to involve Afghanistan, then maybe somewhere in Africa before the Fall of the Berlin Wall. Sam's also gonna be involved somehow in the Gulf War, the hardliner coup in Russia, and all the other recent political events up to and including y2k. (If I'm writing in 2003, the latest Sam novel may very well feature the y2k-induced NWO civil war.) All of which is utterly irrelevant to this thread. What I believe:

I am NOT an objectivist, in that I do not consider altruism to be evil or morally wrong. However, I do not consider it morally RIGHT to give to those who do not deserve it. Mindless altruism is stupid. I think it is stupid to pay some guy $300 a week simply because he hasn't got a job. However, I consider it honorable and good to pay that guy $300 a week to dig ditches and fill them in for 40 hours a week. If he works harder, say for 50 hours a week, then it would be honorable to give him more.

Of course, having this man go back and forth along a ditch is energy wasted. Better to have him doing something productive. Maybe something that helps to pay his own way. I believe that if you give this unemployed man money for nothing, he will have no incentive to work or to improve himself. He will also miss out on the social and self-esteem benefits of working.

On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with giving money to charities like the Salvation Army or whoever. Some people should not neccassarily have to work for money. Wives whose husbands beat the crap out of them, for example, should not have to earn a refuge.

In short, Ayn Rand says that "giving" is bad, full stop. I say that giving to the UNDESERVING is bad, because it both consumes resources AND is bad for the people; it gives them a disincentive to improve themselves.

Everyone has a right to the chance to do the best for themselves. However, A is A, and you cannot consume more than you produce. Charity should be a matter of personal choice. The only function of government should be security, protection, so that people may improve their own lives based on their ability to produce, not on their ability to use force to steal.

If you think that unemployed people should be paid, then give your money to a charity for the unemployed. Or go out and employ someone yourself. If you think school-level education should be free for those whose parents cannot afford it -as I do- then give some of your money to a charity for that end. As I intend to do. I would not give money to make college free, because I intend to work my way through college (or earn financial-aid from the college, not the govt) and think others should do the same.

If you got something for free, you do not value it as much as if you'd paid for it.

Either way, your money is your money. If you want it spent on anyone but yourself, that is your decision. Like Ayn Rand, I agree that it is particularly despicable to practise charity with other peoples' money FOR SELFISH REASONS OF YOUR OWN, SUCH AS GETTING RE-ELECTION. I have compassion to those who deserve it. The welfare bums who feel that society owes them a living, and that they have a right to exert force to steal from those who produce, do not deserve my compassion. If they starve, then they deserve to. But I do not feel that good people deserve to starve. --Leo

-- Leo (lchampion@ozemail.com.au), February 14, 1999.

Here's my answer. The United States is lost because we've made money our god. Arthur Koestler's 'God that failed' was communism, Stalin-style. Communism and Capitalism are simply the two manifestations of materialism, the two faces of Janus. Mammon worship is doomed, and all the investment bankers and all the media shills and political puppets can't change that fact. Last night I had the opportunity to chat with the CFO and CEO of a large northeast investment bank. "Hey, how's you're Y2K remediation going?" They looked nervously at each other, and finally, with a winking smile that said it all, the CFO said "fine." Party line? I asked. More nervous glances and knowing smiles. I think we as a people are headed into the steep part of the learning curve, and that's why elite news media like the NY Times are doing their damnest to make it seem like something larfable. They're worried, and it shows.

-- Spidey (in@jam.com), February 14, 1999.

Spidey ... I think we as a people are headed into the steep part of the learning curve, and that's why elite news media like the NY Times are doing their damndest to make it seem like something laughable. They're worried, and it shows.

Agreed.

And it is how they write those stories than convinces me theyre worried. Big time.

Instead of finding the companies publicly stating they are Y2K ready, willing and able, the press keeps attacking people preparing.

Do we have tons of showcase examples of top executives opening wide the corporate doors to the inquiring press and TV cameras, saying ... Come inside and see what weve finished! No. Its still silence and shuffling as usual. Not to mention that cute little S 96 senate bill trying to reduce Y2K legal liability for corporations.

Connect the dots, and fasten your community seat belts.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), February 14, 1999.

ooops sorry, I gotta go, they are coming to take me away

-- me (justme@aol.com), February 15, 1999.

Spidey - I do think our society has placed too much faith in material things as well as power. Instead of trusting in God, our nation has now placed its trust in government, technology, and the stock market. When these fail to deliver, it will be interesting to see the reaction. When profits start to go south, all bets are off.

Fear that a slowdown in revenue growth is going to take some of the heat off sizzling technology stocks triggered heavy selling on Wall Street Wednesday. (full story)

-- Calling all margins (heavyhitter@market.com), February 17, 1999.

"Anonymous - you'd be surprised how many folks don't care what color a person's skin is - you'll never justify your little race war that way...or any other way either."

My little race war? With guns? Been watching Dan Blather again, eh?

Actually I agree with you. Since most whites live in white areas, they "don't care what color a person's skin is". Problem is (for whites), these white areas are shrinking in size & number. Whites will be nearly extinct in a few generations. Naturally, you won't trust an "evil white racist" like me, but this prediction is from UN & US demographers.

Although we have many technological advances today, the US culture is declining. Having two daughters, I am glad for some elements of woman's rights. However, I don't think bringing the US DOWN to the level of Africa and Central America benefits anyone other than those peoples incapable of building their own civilization (in the last 1000 years, anyway).

Egalitarian are you? "Color" doesn't matter? Name one place on the entire planet where negroes have built a society that anyone (except possibly negroes) would want to live.

No - I don't expect a war. Just a wimper...

-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@anonymous.com), February 19, 1999.