The truth comes Firth...er..forthgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
Read the articles at WND today 03.04.99.
As the Bard said originally "The truth will out"
-- Greybear, who wants to nominate today - Got the News?
-- Greybear (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 04, 1999
Would one of you hot-link vendors pop one in here, please.
-- Greybear (email@example.com), March 04, 1999.
-- _ (_@_._), March 04, 1999.
-- _ (_@_._), March 04, 1999.
I think David Bresnahan stumbled upon a telling fact in todays article. The followwing quote says it all: "Prince says it is wrong to tell the general population to store food and supplies beyond the basic 72-hour kit recommended by FEMA and the Red Cross. The average person cannot afford to do more than that, so the government is not making such recommendations." This could be a major point to consider if in fact the everyday US citizen can not afford to buy enough food to cover the estimated *downtime* then the government can not really afford to alert the masses. Panic would be certain if the powers that be come out and say *ok folks this is going to be a hard ride, over the next ten months you people need to stockpile enough food water, etc to keep you alive for 30-60 days (60-120)*. Can you say: I am afraid, got money?
-- Rusty (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 04, 1999.
Mmm..Mr. Firth became alarmed by what he saw in goverment agency's documents. Perhaps he would care to share that information with us. I'm a GI, but I didn't get that way by accepting vague and/or unsubstantiated info as fact.
-- Eye on Y2K (email@example.com), March 04, 1999.
I am intrigued by these articles. My husband and I had discussed this scenario a few months ago. Feeding stations for those folks caught in the cities. I don't like the sound of "evacuating people to shelters" or redistributing resources, though. Basically, I don't like the sound of any of it. However, I realize that it is true that local resources are going to be overwhelmed. I think the only people capable of pulling off massive feeding/watering efforts would be the military/government. This is good! However, using y2k as an excuse for the military/government officials to police citizens? This is bad! I try not to read something sinister into things. I am afraid that there is a huge opportunity for abuse/oppression to arise in the coming months. But I have to think that some of our military men will be there to help. My sister and elderly mother live in Oak Cliff. (For those of you not from TX, let's just say it is not a nice place to be on an ordinary day). They are "don't wanna talk about it" DGI's. I don't believe I will be able to help them if TSHTF. They won't leave now, and may not be able to if TSHTF. I must admit that I don't allow myself to dwell on it, I just can't. I can't think about the horrible possibilities...I just prepare with the knowledge that they might be here with us. Dear God I hope so.
-- Sharon (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 04, 1999.
It is too bad that Mr. Frith did not go into more detail as to how he came to his conclusions. He is too vague to be crediable especially since he does not site specifics. I am not saying I do not beleive him, I am saying it is very hard to beleive him without additional evidence.
-- Linda A. (email@example.com), March 04, 1999.
I grew up in Oak Cliff (back when it was okay to be from Oak Cliff) so I know what you mean. (I mourn every time I drive past Sunset H.S.) Are you saying that they're DGIs after all the hoopla yesterday. I know the media put their own spin on it, but the Senate message itself should open their eyes. If you and they haven't seen it, download it and give it to them. It might be a start.
-- Vic (Roadrunner@compliant.com), March 04, 1999.
It took me 3 readings of the article. First pas to absorb the general gist. Second reading to see if I really saw what I thought I saw on reading No 1. Only in the third reading did I start to realize the inference behind some of the phrases and the impact of that was the real "truth" I got.
--Greybear, who no one ever accused of being the sharpest knife in the drawer.
- Got Magnifing Glasses?
-- Greybear (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 04, 1999.
Eye and Linda (and other doubters).
There are times when you don't really need 26 confirming witnesses. This is one of those times.
Think about it: If you were in charge of preparing for an emergency of unknown devastation in a state with large cities (one of which self destructs on mischief night, anyway), and if this emergency might include loss of power and shortages of food, in the middle of the winter in a cold environment, would you consider moving people to shelter?
Of course you would.
And, you'd better believe that emergency management officials have thought of it too, if they're worth their salt.
Of course they have.
And, it has been discussed, in at least two other threads, that the most realistic rationale for announcments urging people to stock up of a 3 day period was not that anyone thought the problems would be solved in 72 hours ------ but that it would take FEMA that long to find out where they really had problems and to mobilize for them.
So, what's so incredible about this announcement in WND? It simply confirms what many of us have thought all along. Is it that it shocks you to see that if we can't take care of ourselves the government will do it in the most efficient way -- a public shelter and public feeding? I don't think they have the manpower to resort to pheasant under glass, catered.
Would you rather that the government leave people in cold apartments, with no food or water?
I'm afraid that we're caught between a rock and a hard place, folks. Be realistic about one thing -- a welfare mother with 3 kids simply can't lay away 2 or 3 months food between now and then. Two major problems -- not enough money, and the mind-set is wrong. This is nothing more than government recognition of that fact.
It's ugly, ugly, ugly. But, would you like to suggest a viable alternative for sheltering and feeding 75,000 welfare mothers with 3 kids each? It has to be done. The only problem is that the Emergency Management people got defensive.
-- De (email@example.com), March 04, 1999.
I don't think anyone would disagree with a wise use of our tax dollars in feeding unprepared people
But those that are prepared and paid a lot of those tax dollars for the government and military do not want to be forced to go anywhere by the same government and military.
-- Texan (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 04, 1999.
The fact of the matter is, it would cost millions and millions of dollars for an average city, say 30,000 to store enough emergency food and water away for the people living in that city. A grocery store restocks its shelves every three days, but not everyone hits the stores at the same time. It would be impossible for any city to take on such an endeavor. Prepare today and take care of yourself and family. Money under the mattress and food in the pantry means assurance and insurance for tomorrow.
-- bardou (Bardou@baloney.com), March 04, 1999.
I agree. My statement was for those who doubted that such a thing would/could take place. I simply said that it makes sense for the government to consider "offering" food and shelter in the largest cities -- and especially in northern cities in January. Thjerefore, the report shouldn't be surprising.
This was in response to two earlier posters who expressed doubts that there was adequate confirmation that the report is true.
You may not want it, Texan, but that probably won't stop some 'dedicated' (misguided) civil servant from trying to force it on you, or on other people. That's simply a fact, capiche?
-- De (email@example.com), March 04, 1999.
In the article Government Plans for the Worst in Y2K is the following:
"Frith contends that the federal government knows local and state governments will not be able to deal with the problems which will occur because of the Y2K crisis. He says plans are under way for martial law and the use of mass shelters."
In the article What FEMA has in mind is the following:
"As part of the FEMA Federal Response Plan, there is a detailed plan for the evacuation, shelter, and care of large populations. Such plans for shelter are in place for any major disaster, but they have been incorporated into Y2K consequence planning by FEMA. The plan describes the details of care for up to 300,000 people including registration, feeding, emergency first aid, mail delivery, and all other aspects of care for a minimum of 30 days following the start of the crisis."
OK, now let us accept the above for the sake of discussion. Shelters first. Because Y2K is systemic and has the potential of multiple simultaneous failures, I am assuming that what they mean by "Y2K consequence planning" is that they are planning for some number of these shelters being needed all at the same time.
There are 270 Million Americans. What percentage of them could possibly be relocated, even at up to 300,000 a clip? And where are these shelters that can hold so many, along with the requisite supplies? I am just trying to visualize this. The most people I have been around at any given time has been in a sports Stadiums, which can hold around 70,000 or so people for a few hours. Picture a place that would hold four times as many folks plus supplies. Now think about how many of these giant shelters would be needed based on your guess of the percentage of Americans needing relocated. Where are they, underground? My point is that this may not just be a logistical nightmare, it may be, in actuality, quite impossible. What do you think?
Oh, I almost forgot. That last sentence from the second article - the "care for a minimum of 30 days following the start of the crisis" - add that into the above also. How would it be possible? Ignore that it is not 72 hours like we have been being told by other alphabet agencies. No, this is 30 days, and that is a minimum. Did anyone else reading this have an eyebrow raised besides me?
-- Rob Michaels (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 04, 1999.
Oh, I don't doubt that we may all be slammed into martial law quicker than you can say y2k. I just think if the guy is gonna say he saw something alarming in government documents..then he should tell us what he saw. Anybody can say they saw or heard something alarming. I'd like to be able to assess the info.
-- Eye On Y2K (email@example.com), March 04, 1999.
You said "What do you think? ". Well, since you asked.
I don't think the gov has any plans to relocate and "assist" the entire population. The reasons you list above are part of the story. And now for the rest of the story: (always wanted to get to say that).
It's not 270 million, and it may not even be 300,000 that concern the Gov. What I think concerns the Gov is some smaller portion that for one reason or another the Gov deems to be misfits, neer-do-wells, radicals, what ever term you like. The term sheeple gets bandied about here to much to have meaning here. But it's close. When the vast majority of American citizens will willing do what ever the Goc says, why should the Gov be concerned with "assisting" them. I alreday fall into the group being vilified today as causing part of the problem by simply trying to take care of me and mine.
As you so aptly have pointed out, there just isn't enough help out there in any shape or form to do any good in the instance of serious nation wide problems. So why should they attempt to "assist" some ridiculously small percentage? It turns on the definition of "assist".
I am quite aware that the tone of these remarks match up nicely with you garden variety paranoid wacko. (Flamers save your fuel). What other explanation fits the facts? (Those facts easily infered from the WND articles, which are only the latest and most revealing in a long line).
Further, I am personally not concerned with the Govs plans for 270 million, or 300,000 or 10,000 or even 100. I am concerned about what might happen to exactly 4 - Grey, MaMa, Daughter, and Jr. And before some of you wacko baiters jump in - no - I don't think the Gov has any plans for us by name. I just don't want to participate in any "assistance" program. Nor. I suspect, do many others here.
I can't add up add the evidence and come to any other conclusion. That's why I thought the articles today were very significant.
- Got Self Sufficency?
-- Greybear (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 05, 1999.
Ummmmmmm........ First, It isn't going to be in any one place. I'm old enough to remember that they used RFK Field for the beginning (end?) of the Days of Rage in April of 1971, as a prison, so to speak. Put about 20K people there. It was an interesting exercise, form either side of the wire. What WILL happen is
FEMA will come to the local Red Cross and ask what shelters are in the inventory. Then FEMA will ask about feeding and supply chain. Then things will get a bit dicey as they find that the inventory is a bit out of date, and the qualifications that the CITIES have for shelters aren't even remotely close to National Standards per ARC 30xx. And the cities wil have started opening THEIR shelters already.
Lots of stuff will fly for a bit until the cities and FEMA settle who is in charge. My money will be on ARC since they are the statutory agency designated to handle the situation. (Don't believe me?? Check in any really good search engine through the federal register. You will find that ARC has had the statutory responsibility to 'LEAD THE RESPONESE (Emphasis mine)" to disasters since 1880+/- with reinforcing legislation in 1898, 1908, 1918, 1968+1969, 1975 or 6 and into the 80's and 90's.)
The shelters will end up being schools, churches, Masonic temples, and K of C halls. And we will run out. There are too many bodies and not enough square footage in almost all cities. Remember the pictures of Andrew's tent cities. You WILL see this material again.
Just my NTBHO
Chuck a night driver who has seen his share of National Assignments
-- Chuck, night driver (email@example.com), March 05, 1999.
I heard Bresnahan on short wave. He said that the National Guard officers mailed him 36 pages of documentation. Let us hope he shares them with us.
-- Betty Arnspiger (Barn266@aol.com), March 05, 1999.
How? There is no physical way to take care of this many people - they tried at the SuperDome during floods last year - it was literally an unmitigated disaster - and in that case, the "providers" had power, water, shelter, food, and the rest of the country to help - the flooding was local in nature.
Guys - the Army/FEMA and the Archangel Gabriel (well, he might, but even he would need some help from a higer authority) simply don't have the resources to do this. It can't do it. It can't provide warnth, clothing, shelter, water, food, and lights for 1 day, two days, three days, or 3 hours to enough people in enough areas to matter - and if troubles are localized - it can't store and ship the supplies to right areas fast enough.
-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 05, 1999.
My sister and her family have lived in the same house in Oak Cliff for 27 years. My sister went to Adamson H.S. but both of her kids graduated from Sunset H.S. Things have certainly changed. I haven't spoken with them since the Senate report came out. I have printed a copy of it and plan to take it with me on my next visit to Dallas. The last time I broached the subject with my sister, she just changed the subject. She (like the rest of us) has her own problems and doesn't want to think about y2k. The difference is we understand that time is growing short. People will be forced to think about it when it becomes PERSONAL (but by then it will be too late). Right now it is some cloud on the horizon. Thanks for your advice, Vic.
-- Sharon (email@example.com), March 05, 1999.
Sports stadiums may be the solution where the weather's warm -- but a lot of them are located in places where it snows and gets pretty cold in January and February. Not too many are roofed, either.
-- Tom Carey (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 05, 1999.