no way to win a war. Y2k is a war and we are losing it. I wonder what was discussed at the Cabinet meeting? Was it contingency planning or the new line of B S that was to be shoveled out to the people? The Prez probably asked for status reports from each Agency so the requests will go down the chain of command to the Regional Offices then to the State offices. Each person reporting will put the best light on what is happening and report that all problems are being worked on and there will be no major breakdowns. At each level the reports get revised to make the picture look better. This avoids the shoot the messenger problem as there is no bad news reported. The progress reports will ignore any problems with embedded systems, Jo Ann Effect, the Bruce Beach timer problems (not yet proved or don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up), more useless tests will be conducted and the public be da_ _ed. Unfortunately, the leaders are following the example of our highest elected officials that it is O K to lie to the people. There is a surplus, Y2k is fixed, store supplies for a winter storm bla bla bla. Believe it at your peril.

-- Tom (Tom@notstupid.gom), September 19, 1999

Answers

We have become a nation of total wusses...

-- Mara Wayne (MaraWayne@aol.com), September 19, 1999.

I wouldn't have expected this forum to be the place where we all look back and admire the wonderful things done by FDR. I personally doubt that the current clowns could have done much worse in comparison. FDR wasn't exactly Churchill, you know.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 19, 1999.

Flint, are you sayting that Clinton is a good a leader as FDR was? Please say that you are not saying this. FDR, no matter what you think of his politics or his personal life, was one of our greatest presidents. His leadership got us through a depression and a world war. I shudder to think how Clinton would have handled things back then.

-- Puzzled (saywhat@yourkidding.com), September 19, 1999.

Puzzled:

The problem is, history is not an experiment with controls. The depression and the war would have ended regardless of who happened to be President. Whether they would have ended sooner, or differently, under a different president(s) is impossible to know. I personally don't consider either the depression or the war to have been managed very well at the Presidential level, with hardships resulting from both to have been considerably worse than the needed have been.

I realize that, on principle, Clinton is by definition the worst we've ever had, and the unremittingly excellent economy throughout Clinton's entire administration so far is a matter of pure luck. Faced with adversity, he may have stumbled badly. I don't know.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 19, 1999.

HEY, ALL YOU YOUNG PUPS:

I was there (In addition my daddy sharpened my mind to listen to the political news programs and to read the political sections of the newspapers -- which of course didn't help my 'nerd' image among all those around me.) -- and I've got news for you:

About all this nation ever heard in the '30s and '40s was JUST what you described in your 1st paragraph, Tom. That's why we stood by while the Saar was occupied in '36, China and Mongolia was raped by the Japanese during the '30s, Czechoslovakia was taken over in '38, Austria was 'anschluss'ed shortly thereafter, AND Poland, France and the rest of Europe experienced the Panzer divisions' benevolence starting in '39 ---- AND AMERICA DID NOTHING ABOUT IT.

Yes, that's right, we did NOT confront Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito all during that period. And Churchill was laughed at. And our own military men who warned of what was coming were ridiculed.

That's one of the wonderful things about the human mind, as demonstrated again by the current American generations -- it's great facility for re-writing history.

(Side light here. It will never be definitely proven, but for all FDR's socialist/humanist mistakes, he probably brilliantly maneuvered us into enough vulnerability in the eyes of the Japanese, that they made the misstep of bombing Pearl Harbor. If they had just waited a few years, Europe would have been completely done in by Hitler, who could have made some devil's pact with Stalin to temporarily carve up the continent [until 1 or the other initiated the inevitable doublecross]. THEN Japan could have taken over the entire Pacific, and finally invaded our West Coast. Can you imagine what kind of movies would have come out of Hollywood??!!)

So what's the bottom line chillun'? It's this: If Y2K turns out to be as bad as some of expect -- "it will come as a tremendous shock" to the American public ----- AGAIN. Noo, so vat else is noo?

An old, doddering Senior Citizen,

Bill

-- William J. Schenker, MD (wjs@linkfast.net), September 19, 1999.

Thanks, Bill. I wasn't getting through, and you might.

That's the way it was, and it couldnt' have been much worse.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 19, 1999.

Dr. Schenker:

I recall reading from history class that Americans didn't want to get involved in WW2 because of the horrors they suffered in WW1, and I can't see the current generation willing to make the great sacrifices that you and others have done for our country.

I just don't see it happening yet. That's why bad things will happen when we get invaded and nuked.

-- Randolph (dinosaur@williams-net.com), September 19, 1999.

Bill -- Agree 100%. FDR did have the ability to "rally" the nation, in peace and war, which is no small thing in any President. But the New Deal arguably set us down a road that was radically "other" than the founders envisioned and a road that was UNNECESSARY as well as unconstitutional.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), September 19, 1999.

FDR, architect of the Nanny State.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 19, 1999.

Tom,

The first thing I thought when I read your thread title was: "But that's what Americans DID hear in the late 30s and early 40s, according to what I've read." I see that others have beaten me to it in pointing this out.

If you want people to be convinced by your historical comparisons, it would be a good idea to get the history straight first.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), September 19, 1999.

Thanks, Dr. Schenker, for your post, as well as for your other valuable contributory posts. I especially liked the one about some of us so-called "doomers" as being closet pollys. Some current quotes from the paper are quite illustrative of the point of this thread:

RE "Floodwaters still rising on E. Coast", the front page headline story by Estes Thompson (A.P.) in yesterday's San Antonio Express- News, "'Nobody knows how bad it is. Nobody expected this,' said attorney Tommy More, who wore chest waders as he checked on a friend's law office. A helicopter roared overhead, looking for stranded residents near the riverbank. 'You hear these helicopters, and it just makes you sick,' Moore said. 'You know they're helping people, but it makes you realize how vulnerable we are. It's like a war zone.'"

And from today's S.A. Express-News, (top of page 5A), in an A.P. wire story by Elizabeth Davis, about the "after-Floyd floods battering N. Carolina", "Greenville, N.C.-- The power is intermittent, much of the county is completely under water, roads are closed, grocery store shelves are empty and little gasoline is available. Can it get worse? Yes. . . 'Everyone is figuring out their own survival,' Carl Campbell said Sunday as the [Tar] river inched closer to his home and neighbors tried to save their belongings from their flooded homes."

Let those who have ears, hear. . .

-- Dewer Dye (qwerty@!!!!.net), September 20, 1999.