JANUARY 3, 2000
Y2K after-action report
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

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:

Americans are so conditioned for instant gratification that we become myopic (as well as deaf) to things subtle and/or complex. A gaggle of experts (not me) are saying it is too early to claim victory over the Y2K bug. Last week Massachusetts Institute of Technology shut down all their 20,000 computers for the weekend. They were not the Lone Ranger. Tens of millions of the world's business systems will be rebooting today. Canadian Y2K poobah Peter de Jager says, "It is very, very premature at this point in time to declare victory. We expected the infrastructure to be OK, but wait until next week to start drawing conclusions about how successful or unsuccessful we've been."

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:

There are three basic dangers we continue to face regardless of whatever does or does not result from the monumental global efforts to "kill the bug." First, the very real threat that all the premature articulation claiming victory will overshadow or negate all the remarkable work done by legions of nerds, who deserve but will not receive commendation. Secondly, the unintended consequences of some companies and countries failing to report (or acknowledge) problems. Lastly, (and I think more significant) is the danger that if or when a Y2K-related glitch does create a problem months or years down the road, it may never be recognized or managed as a Y2K problem.

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