For North Americans, computer chaos comes in the middle of our winter. I would think that the central governments are charged with the responsibility to ensure that we have the necessary utilities --gas, electric, water and sewer available, otherwise there could be a lot of cold people. Since most of these utilities are outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, the local state/province or municipality oversees these services. Can we trust any government and certainly these smaller entities with the task of having those utilities being compliant?

-- Rick Reilly (rreilly@shaw.wave.ca), July 08, 1998

Answers

Why not become responsible for yourself instead of expecting the government to take care of you? Aren't we always bitching about the government taking care of others with our tax dollars..like those that are sucking off the tit of the taxpayer..that is you and me? I am afraid when the funds dry up, those still sucking aren't finished with us...(that is, we how have struggled to get where we are at today). P.S. No liberal whiners please!

-- Barb-Douglas (bardou@yahoo.com), July 08, 1998.

If I understand the implications of your post, you're saying that local entities can't be trusted to do the things needed, so the next step must necessarily be to entrust "them" in Washington to do the job. Of course, when Washington fails, we must then rely on a world entity. Is that where you're going?

I agree with Barb-Douglas: take responsibility for your own well being and stop relying on others to provide blanket 'protection' at the price of womb to tomb supervision.

There are more than a few who firmly believe that "they" will do something..........and that the something will include martial law and complete loss of individual freedom in this land of the free. I posted, above, reference to a 5 part article in Westergaard that references exactly what might happen, why it might happen, and what must happen to avoid excess federal control. Suggest you read it, Rick.

Rocky

-- Rocky Knolls (rknolls@hotmail.com), July 08, 1998.

It's my belief that you should not depend upon any entity which you can not directly influence being Y2k compliant - or themselves influencing other organizations to ensure that they are compliant. If you have the resources, you should do what you can to become self-sufficient. I just purchased a generator and I'll be taking many other steps over the next year.

If you can convince your local government to do some contingency planning - great! But don't expect them to keep the power on. I recently managed to convince our First Selectman (the New England equivalent of a mayor) that simply checking the town's computers for Y2k problems is not enough. She is setting up a Y2k committee to assess any problems the town and its citizens may experience. Hopefully, they will develop some realistic contingency plans and be prepared to help anyone who need's assistance - but I don't intend to be one of that group.

You'll notice that I didn't state that I TRUST that the town will do the right thing. I'm going to try to weasel my way onto the committee so that I can (hopefully) influence the results.

Trust no one - but do get involved and do whatever you can.

-- Ed Perrault (EdPerrault@Compuserve.com), July 08, 1998.

Thanks, Ed, for steering this in a more positive, community-oriented direction. While I agree with taking responsibility for one's own safety as well as his family's, I think that it's incumbent upon all of us to accept some responsibility for the well-being of our community. In other words, we must become the "they" who will take care of the community, as Ed is planning to do. For as sure as we don't, those abandoned will try to take care of us--and I don't mean that in a nice way.

Btw, Rocky, you wouldn't be referring to the series of articles by John Peterson. That was one of the more positive, uplifting sentiments I've seen in a while--quite in keeping with John Westergaard's level-headed, realistic, non-D&G presentations.

Hal

"Whenever I find myself arguing for something with great passion, I can be certain I'm not convinced."---Hugh Prather

-- Hallyx (Hallyx@aol.com), July 08, 1998.

Thanks for the intelligent responses. It's refreshing to hear other people echoing the same. In order for our city to prepare for Y2K, like any other form of government, it will take them 2 years, 14 committee's, millions of wasted taxpayer's dollars, and no solution to the problem! It's only an opportunity for them to save their heiny for a couple more years. Then when TSHTF, I assure you they will be the first to be sought out and taken care of! And, the people that will do it, are the ones that the government has taken care of since birth. I see Y2K as an opportunity to turn this country around. It will be painful for many, but it's a process that has to be. We can't keep on going the way Rome!

-- Barb-Douglas (bardou@yahoo.com), July 08, 1998.

To answer the original question -- no, we can't trust any government to get the utilities compliant. They can't even get themselves compliant, and none of them want to be seen as interfering with the free market anyway (the same free market that, of course, goes running to Uncle Sugar any time some foreign investments go sour or when labor gets tight).

Frankly, we're on our own. I'm ready to defend myself & my community, although I doubt it'll get THAT bad. I'm ready to provide for my family, and I rather expect that we'll be eating a few meals compliments of bullet, hook, or trap. I'm getting ready to see what the people around me are able to do to help each other. Are you?

However, the other messages in this thread sum up, for me, what's scary about Y2K. Barb-Douglas's first response was laced with comments like "the public tit... the people sucking aren't finished... no liberal whiners please!" That's normal in today's in-your-face society. I don't care for either left-wing or right-wing whining either, but I've gotten to the point where I either sigh or laugh & move on. No sense in needlessly adding to the level of animosity in this country; it's bad enough already.

It's the second of B-D's responses, though, that remind me what we could be up against:

I see Y2K as an opportunity to turn this country around. It will be painful for many, but it's a process that has to be. We can't keep on going the way [of] Rome!

I don't know B-D, and don't ascribe any of the following to her, but her quote captures so well the thing I really fear about Y2K: people who want to use the coming trouble as an opportunity to re-make America according to their own vision, and have very little regard for those who don't share their vision. ("The Postman" -- the book, not the movie -- posits the final collapse of the country as being due to raiders looting everything they could & destroying the rest. As a result, people in camo were shot on sight.)

These are people who will use bullets, because they could never gain power by ballots -- not because the elections are rigged, but because even the most complacent know that "freedom" doesn't mean "freedom only for those who agree with us."

"Painful for many." That probably means the unprepared. But it could also mean the "many" who want nothing to do with the bully-boys who could be lording over pieces of what used to be America at gunpoint. "The UN is coming -- or is it that bunch in the next county? Doesn't matter; we need all your stored gasoline, that truck, half of your chow, and we're drafting you too. We'll put you up front so you won't desert."

Be it cash, barter, or our lives, taxation is taxation.

-- Larry Kollar (lekollar@nyx.net), July 09, 1998.