* * * 19990927 Monday

Stupidest Y2K quote-of-the-day!:

_Steven Davis_:

"Threatening to hold government officials accountable is a tough way to get them to act. I wish her ( Paloma O'Riley ) luck." ______________________________

Where on earth does this jerk--I know of him; I've corresponded with this guy re Y2K via e-mail over the past 1+ years--get off with making such an assinine statement?

Of course government officials are to be held accountable. Accountable for EVERYTHING they DO ( ACT ) and DON'T DO ( INACTION )! I think that's what the U.S. Constitution says it's all about, anyway!! No?!

If blood runs in the streets because of Y2K, the politicians should be the first to see their last "light" from the people under dark street lights!

Accountability, indeed!! The more accountability of politicians to the people, the better off a people are likely to be closer to freedom!

Regards, Bob Mangus

* * *

New York Times, September 27, 1999: < http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/09/biztech/articles/27palo.html >

"Founder of Year 2000 Service Quits to Try Different Approach"

By BARNABY J. FEDER

In the current atmosphere, Ms. O'Riley said, even those officials who believe that it makes sense to prepare for disruptions like loss of power, phones or water are afraid they will be stymied and exposed to ridicule if they act on those beliefs. To counter the inertia, Ms. O'Riley is hoping to come up with ways to make local officials believe that they could face legal or financial liabilities if their failure to act results in breakdowns in local services or public safety.

But Steven Davis, a former computer manager for Montgomery County, Md., who frequently works with community-based Year 2000 programs, said: "Threatening to hold government officials accountable is a tough way to get them to act. I wish her luck."

[END TEXT]

-- Robert Mangus (rmangus1@yahoo.com), September 27, 1999

Answers

Yes, I suppose they will be held accountable...someday. Afterall, we heard something similar this year about some Nazi war criminal being found somewhere in the world, (55 years after the atrocities occurred), and this person will be held accountable for what they did. Too bad that the system will have to absorb their medical and dental related expenses for what is to be the remainder of their days.

-- C. Gerges (seismicstudy@quake.sci), September 27, 1999.

Since we (the public of the US) have not held government officials accountable for things like Monicagate, Filegate, Chinese campaign contributions, Chinese espianage at Los Alamos, etc., why should we believe that they will be held responsible for Y2K failures?

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), September 27, 1999.

Steve Davis has tried to play both sides with lackluster performance. Don't forget that.

-- germane (sometimes@hot.cold), September 27, 1999.

Um....you Doomjockeys need to make up your minds.

In this thread you want to hold government powers accountable.

Yet, a week and a half ago I posted something regarding the conditions in eastern NC after hurricane Floyd passed through here. In that post, I paid compliments to the way in which FEMA, the National Guard, and the Coast Guard have helped out around here, without anything anywhere remotely resembling the dreaded "martial law" that Doomers trumpet so loudly.

Responding to what I posted, one 'Colonel Sanders' posted this: "Yeah chicken you just keep on counting on the government to do for you what you should be doing yurself..."

So which is it? Is the government accountable, in which case we should count on them to do things for us we aren't able to do for ourselves? Or is it true that we should all be totally self-sufficient, in which case the government can't be held accountable at all?

Make up your minds.

There are thousands of ordinary, good strong people within a few miles of where I sit who thank God right now that there is a government that can help them do things they aren't able to do for themselves. They couldn't fly over flood waters, but government helicopters got them out. Without that government assistance, many of these folks would be dead right now. If you Doomers think you can be totally self-sufficient, you're just flat deluded. Recent events in eastern NC prove that beyond any shadow of any doubt.

"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of a continent, a part of the main..." -- John Donne, Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions [1624]

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), September 27, 1999.

CL:

"And those with their jutting peninsulas deserve to be submerged." -- the truncated part of that quotation

-- Randolph (dinosaur@williams-net.com), September 27, 1999.

To Chicken Little

I do take exception to the statement that considering myself responsible for the condition I and those within my care are in is delusional. Yes the government has helped in untold ways in NC and I do not fault their actions there BUT the bottom line for ANY of us is we are solely responsible for the condition we are in. If we expect a knight in shining armour to come riding in to save the day and he does not show then who is responsible?

All of us are responsible for our actions, whether politician or not. If I choose to ignore the potential for disruptions or storms or whatever life throws my way and harm comes to those I am responsible for do I lay blame somewhere else? No I do not. Tho many people TRY to lay the fault or blame elsewhere it still comes down to choices you made. It is a sad state this world has come to where individuals are not held accountable for their actions or lack of when by doing so they harm others. Its even sadder that its considered normal.

Do I think that we are interdependent? Yes I do. But to place the responsiblity for our personal welfare into anyone elses hands but our own is irresponsible.

-- Stacia (ClassyCwgl@aol.com), September 27, 1999.

Huh? Chicken Little says: "So which is it? Is the government accountable, in which case we should count on them to do things for us we aren't able to do for ourselves? Or is it true that we should all be totally self-sufficient, in which case the government can't be held accountable at all? Make up your minds."

What in the world does holding public officials (paid with our tax dollars) accountable for their misdeeds (including lying and misinformation and mismanagement) have to do with encouraging increased self-sufficiency? In the case of Y2K I never expected the gov't to feed and shelter everyone in case of "glitches", but I do hold them responsible for deceptive reporting on Y2K, and for convincing the population that no real preparation.. no self-sufficiency.. is necessary or desired. A situation has been created where dependency on the gov't is assured... and the gov't can't possibly fulfill that enormous need. For this we should all hold them accountable.

-- Linda (lwmb@psln.com), September 27, 1999.

Bob, I have a feeling this quote is misleading, and/or you've misunderstood it.

If anything it probably reflects Steve's experience with federal/local officialdom. You said: "Of course government officials are to be held accountable." Davis was not implying otherwise. He just made the point that it may be an impractical approach. When was the last time you heard of elected officials actually *doing* something because otherwise they might be held responsible? That requires the rare proactive mindset.

Elected officials who are *not* doing something because they fear they might be held responsible is more consistent with my experience. Fear of consequences causes inaction more easily than action.

Paloma O'Reilly went up against Big Money and Big Propaganda companies like the ABA and Re~ndon. She's desperately trying to find a more effective approach, and I too wish her luck.

-- Lewis (aslanshow@yahoo.com), September 28, 1999.