I have been following the potential problems of Y2K since 1997, long before Y2K became a noun or a boutique industry. I wrote my first Y2K piece for WorldNetDaily in April 1998. I have interviewed the full spectrum of Y2K doomsayers and critics from Dr. Gary North to assorted government officials. I have contended for over a year that Y2K is not an event but rather a process. Nevertheless, there are those who are taking misplaced visceral satisfaction in chiding, "Neener, neener. It was all much ado about nothing." BULLFEATHERS!

One reader in Tampa Florida wrote,

B.C: "You promoted and offered an uncritical ear to the creators of Y2K hysteria, but you're about to discover the price."

Me: Not true, I have been most critical of both the doomsayers and the naysayers.

B.C.: "Sure, you can defend yourself by saying that nothing said was technically untrue. You can join in with all the other back-pedalers and dismiss your warnings as better safe than sorry. You can even claim that you did us all a 'service' by promoting preventive action."

Me: Yeah, I could say all that, but I won't. I am neither back-pedaling, nor disappointed with a relatively uneventful New Year.

B.C.: "Today, Jan 1, 2000, is a milestone marking the beginning of the solidification of doubts as to the trustworthiness of many individuals that aggressively promote a wide range of conspiracies and disasters. It's the beginning of the end of success for many news reporters and entertainers like yourself because you have too often chosen expediency over honor."

Me: What a crock of self-righteous arrogant bull.

B.C.: "I am more saddened to see all the valuable work that you and other good people have done damaged in the fallout. So many important open-ended investigations into real government scandals will be tarnished by the impatience of those who couldn't resist selling them all out for a sponsor or an alliance."

Me: Neither I nor WorldNetDaily has any proprietary interest in Y2K. Frankly, the time, effort and attention we have devoted to the issue will not only fail to negatively impact on our credibility or ability to expose future controversial issues; it will actually enhance our credibility -- unless you believe that Ernst & Young, all the government Y2K entities, scientists, experts and technocrats around the world will somehow suffer reciprocal negative impacts to their credibility.

Meanwhile, for all those pretentious, self-righteous boobs on both sides of the Y2K hoopla, here's the reality check (especially for those who don't want to be confused with facts which contradict their preconceived opinions). The following is NOT my opinion:

• Over a trillion dollars was spent to mitigate and prevent serious Y2K problems. If it was truly "much ado about nothing" why did the U.S. government spend over $8.5 billion to fix what was not wrong? Why did the private sector spend over $100 billion?
• Despite the extraordinary effort and expense to prove that technology can work, the Pentagon (although sandbagging initially) eventually acknowledged a significant Y2K failure. Despite telling the world everything was cool, the same officials (including Deputy Director John Hamre), later revealed a major computer failure occurred shortly after 7 p.m. EST (which is midnight Greenwich Mean Time).
• Seven of the 103 U.S. commercial nuclear reactors had minor problems.
• Gambia was the only country that has reported it was seriously affected. Significant power outages threatened the Gambian energy sector. Major and/or significant disruptions were expected in air and sea transportation, the financial sector and government services.
• Banks and credit card problems occurred.
• Japanese nuke plants had problems.
• Thousands of minor problems occurred in systems ranging from slot machines to taxi cabs to vending machines to websites.
• Andy Kyte, analyst with the Gartner Group, a U.S. information technology research company says, "Unless purged, the bug will act more like a debilitating disease which insidiously weakens computer systems before finally toppling them."
• According to Kyte, fewer than 10 percent of all Y2K-related failures will happen during the two weeks surrounding Jan. 1, 2000. Fifty-five percent of problems will hit over the balance of the year. "We've been saying for a long time that this was not going to be a pyrotechnic event," Kyte says. "It is not about fireworks going off now or a sudden explosion. It's about the gradual degradation of the efficiency of computer systems."
• Year 2000 team leader at Ernst & Young, Nick Fitzhugh believes (like most knowledgeable experts) it is too early for companies to lower their guard.
• The more serious Y2K hassles will take time to reveal themselves. The full damage of Y2K will be mostly hidden until mid to late January. Bruce McConnell, head of the International Y2K Corporation Center, which is funded by the World Bank, says officials probably won't be able to tell the overall impact until the third week in January.

 

 

The list is long and I am confident others will be reporting on Y2K ad nauseam. My concluding comments on Y2K are this: It ain't over. However, having survived the first hurdle, as life, inertia, and other news cycles gain dominance, please consider the following:

1. Despite over a trillion dollars to pre-empt or mitigate Y2K-related problems, problems resulted across a wide spectrum.
2. Virtually all the experts in government, industry, and academia parrot the same line, "It is too early to tell. ..."
3. If or when problems do materialize, they probably will not be catastrophic, but debilitating (and progressive).
4. Much of the success in surviving the Y2K panic was a product of government and the private sector compelling a pro-active approach. Technology coupled with the sense of urgency worked marvelously.
5. We have dodged a bullet, and survived a battle, but the war could be longer than many would like to admit.

 

 

To synthesize the scholarly, diplomatic, academic and technobabble of hundreds of assorted experts: It ain't over.