[Fair Use: For Educational Purposes Only]

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 29, 1999

By Michael Hyatt

The Y2K Blame Game

You've seen the plot before. A terrible crime has been committed. The police round up a small group of suspects and place them, shoulder-to-shoulder, in a lineup. The victim stands behind a two-way mirror and identifies the perpetrator.

A similar scenario will be played out sometime next year. Here's how it works: Imagine it is sometime after the first of the year. As a result of Y2K, there have been disruptions. They didn't result in the end of the world, but they were more severe than what the government and big business had suggested they would be. As a result, citizens are furious and want to know who is responsible.

Imagine that the authorities have rounded up five suspects. Here they are in no specific order:

Elroy: This suspect represents all the geek programmers who should have known better than to try and save space by shaving two digits off the year portion of dates. This is what my grandma used to refer to as "cutting off your nose to spite your face." What were they thinking? Didn't they know that this little "shortcut" would eventually catch up with them? If not, then perhaps they are only guilty of negligence. But perhaps their motive was more sinister. What if they adopted the two-digit date format just so they could cash in on the Y2K re-programming bonanza at the end of the century? If so, this is the ultimate "double-dip." They got paid to write the faulty code and then they got paid again to fix it.

Why is Elroy a suspect? Follow the money. A few years ago, the GartnerGroup estimated that governments and businesses would spend between $300 and $600 billion to eradicate the Millennium Bug from computer systems. Already, in the U.S. alone, we have spent some $100 billion, and, I'm sure, the final tab will be much higher, considering the fact that most organizations have only focused on "mission-critical" software. They still have to finish this job then move on to non-mission-critical software. Of this $100 billion, the federal government has spent $8.4 billion, more than four times their original estimate. To whom has all this money been paid? You guessed it: Elroy and his programmer buddies. No wonder he is a suspect.

What is the accusation? If Elroy had exercised a little foresight and allowed for the four-digit year to start with, things wouldn't have failed.

Shorty: This suspect represents all the "little" people -- the small companies, municipalities and countries that just didn't take the Y2K problem seriously until it was too late. For months now, we have heard the federal government and the big companies talk about how they are going to be OK, but they are worried about the smaller organizations.

Why is Shorty a suspect? According to the National Federation of Independent Business, 83 percent of companies with fewer than 100 employees considered Y2K "not very serious" or "not at all serious" to their operations. The federation estimates that there are some 1.5 million small businesses that have made no effort to detect or correct flaws. This, despite the fact that the Small Business Administration has a special loan program available to small businesses who want to upgrade their systems. As of Dec. 6, only 82 loans, totaling $6.6 million had been made.

What is the accusation? If Shorty had just taken this problem more seriously early on, we wouldn't be in this mess today.

Brother Dave: This suspect represents all the right-wing religious wackos who hope to see the world end and the Lord return to judge the moral reprobates. Some of them -- especially the more extreme ones -- were willing to give the Lord a helping hand by creating a little mayhem of their own on New Year's Eve. The FBI became so concerned about Brother Dave that they submitted a report to Congress before the rollover entitled, "Project Megiddo," named after a hill in northern Israel, which, according to the Bible, will be the setting of the final battle between God and the forces of evil.

Why is Brother Dave a suspect? Well, for one, it's convenient. From Waco to Ruby Ridge, the Clinton administration has made a point of targeting what it considers to be religious extremists. In the FBI report, four specific groups are mentioned: Christian Identity, White Supremacists, various Militia groups, and Black Hebrew Israelites. Most Americans would agree that these groups are extreme. But sadly, by the time this report was popularized by the traditional press, anyone with religious convictions was smeared, especially if they were conservative Christians.

What is the accusation? If Brother Dave hadn't whipped the sheep into a frenzy, everything would have been OK.

Bob and Carol: You know them. This is that crazy couple next door. They represent all those fanatics who took Y2K so seriously that they actually prepared for disruptions. No, not the equivalent of a three-day winter snowstorm, but something far more significant. They stockpiled food, water, and cash, and actually had an alternative source of heat. Worst of all -- can you believe it -- they even have a gun and some ammunition stored!

Why are Bob and Carol suspects? Because our just-in-time inventory management systems made stockpiling for everyone impossible. According to the government and media elite, since not everyone can do it, no one should do it. We're all in this together, and we will get by just fine if no one panics and starts hoarding. As the experts have tried to make clear again and again, we have more to fear from the irrational response of the public than the fact that the code is broken.

What is the accusation? If Bob and Carol hadn't become greedy and started hoarding, there would have been plenty of supplies for everyone.

Osama: This suspect represents the threat of international terrorism. This has been the primary focus of the media in the last few weeks before the century date change. America loves to hate this poor Middle Eastern rogue with his thick accent. Sadly, this stereotype has taken on a life of its own. While terrorism in the modern world is always a threat, more often than not, it now comes from domestic sources or from countries other than those in the Middle East. But it's so much easier to cast suspicions on those who are so different from us.

Why is Osama a suspect? Because he does, in fact, often take advantage of important anniversaries. Besides, no one will stick up for him. He is friendless and an easy target. Never mind the fact that we didn't have any specific threats before the rollover. Also, never mind the fact that law enforcement officials have not been above planting evidence to focus our attentions elsewhere.

What is the accusation? If Osama and his Arab friends hadn't taken advantage of the situation to create mayhem, nothing much would have happened. The only reason some areas lost (fill in the blank), is because the terrorists destroyed it.

There may be more suspects than these five, but these are certainly the main ones. Already the finger-pointing has begun. But just who is it who is pointing their collective fingers at these suspects? Surprise, surprise, the two gentlemen behind the mirror, the ones sizing up the suspects and making the accusations, are the federal government and big business.

You see, both of these groups have painted themselves into a corner. They have gone on the record as saying they are either 99.9 percent compliant (the federal government) or 100 percent Y2K-ready (various industries). If there are problems, they only have three choices:

1.Admit that they were incompetent in fixing the code

2.Confess that they lied about their compliance

3.Find someone else to blame.

Does anyone honestly think the first two choices are viable? I don't. What we have is a case of the guilty accusing the innocent (or the irrelevant). However, the accusations will create just enough confusion that no one will actually be charged -- least of all the ones who are probably the most guilty of all. The only ones who will know the truth are those who saw it coming before it happened.

URL: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_hyatt/19991229_xcmhy_the_y2k_bl.shtml

-- snooze button (alarmclock_2000@yahoo.com), December 29, 1999

Answers

That was a pretty good article. Guess I'll be Bob of Bob & Carol.

My only quibble here is that Hyatt doesn't quite have it right with suspect Brother Dave.

Why is Brother Dave a suspect? Well, for one, it's convenient. From Waco to Ruby Ridge, the Clinton administration has made a point of targeting what it considers to be religious extremists.

I am by NO means a fan of Slick Willy but the Feds targeting of what it considers to be religious extremists is much more general in nature than just the Klintonistas.

The Ruby Ridge deal went from surveillance to murder and an armed siege on August 21st, 1992 while Bush was still president. That debacle belongs to the Republicans.

The botched BATF raid on Koresh's Waco home went down on February 8th, 1993 about three weeks after Clinton was sworn in. The final assualt that led to the death of over 80 children, women and men was on April 19th, 1993. I suppose it's within the realm of possibility that the ATF could have conceived, planned and carried out that raid between the time Clinton was sworn in and February 8 but I'd find it difficult to believe. The beginnings of that miserable failure at a media stunt came under the Republicans as well although it was the Democrats who brought it to its fiery, bloody end. Both Democrats and Republicans can share the blame for Waco.

Brother Dave's problem lies with certain elements in the Federal Government irrespective of who's administration it is or to what political party the Chief Executive happens to belong.

Bob & Carol (that's most of you doomers) need to be concerned because those same certain elements in government, media and the ever multiplying non-governmental organizations (NGO's) commonly lump Brother Dave, Bob and Carol into the same class. Doesn't matter whether they ever intend to threaten anybody at all at any time, you all have the potential to do so and that's good enough. Self-reliance is not a facet of good character in their opinion. Think about it.

-- Ian (ian@eire.com), December 29, 1999.