The following is a free Y2K alert + analysis from Y2KNEWSWIRE.
COM. You signed up for this. Removal / unsubscribe instructions
and e-mail contacts are at the bottom of this e-mail. *Do not*
reply by hitting 'reply' in your e-mail program. To reach us, you
must use one of the e-mail addresses given below.
____________________________________________________________
RED CROSS RECOMMENDS AMERICANS STOCKPILE FOOD, CASH
[Commentary]
Yes, we knew that would get your attention. Today we challenge
the definition of the words, "hoarding" and "stockpiling,"
because the American Red Cross is doing an excellent job
recommending Americans store up to a week's supply of food,
medicine, gasoline and cash, but they insist that Americans do
not "hoard."
However, they offer no distinction between the two.
Read the Red Cross Y2K suggestions at:
redcross.org
So we checked with Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary,
which defines "hoarding" as, "To collect and lay up; to amass and
deposit in secret; to store secretly, or for the sake of keeping
and accumulating."
Is the Red Cross recommending people collect and lay up a week's
supply? Yes they are. Is the Red Cross recommending this for the
sake of keeping and accumulating? Yes they are. Is the Red Cross
recommending people do it in secret? No, they aren't, but neither
do they recommend people do it in a highly visible manner. It
appears the Red Cross is neutral on the "secrecy" part.
However, people could argue that the word "hoard" contains an
element of secrecy not encouraged by the Red Cross, and therefore,
they are not recommending people "hoard" supplies.
STOCKPILING
But the Red Cross recommendations *exactly* fit the definition
of "stockpiling" given by Websters: "accumulating and storing a
reserve supply."
Is the Red Cross suggesting people accumulate and store a
reserve supply? Absolutely. No question about it. That is
precisely their advice. The Red Cross is recommending Americans
stockpile food, medicine, cash, and other items.
Any person who insists the Red Cross is not recommending people
stockpile supplies is not being honest or is unfamiliar with what
the words mean. Without question, the Red Cross is recommending
Americans accumulate and store a reserve supply of a variety of
items, and that is *exactly* the definition of "stockpiling."
Want more proof? The Merriam Webster dictionary at www.m-w.com
offers two definitions for "stockpile:"
1) to place or store in or on a stockpile
2) to accumulate a stockpile of
.. which doesn't help much, considering they are using the word
'stockpile' to define the same word.
But the Webster's dictionary at www.dictionary.com defines
"stockpile" as, "have on hand; "Do you carry kerosene heaters?"
Very interesting: in this example, they reference "kerosene
heaters," indicating that the common context of the word
"stockpile" refers to emergency supplies: precisely what the Red
Cross is concerned with.
Roget's Thesaurus provides synonyms for the verb "to store" as
follows:
"accumulation, hoard, rick, stack"
Again, you find the word, "hoard," meaning "to store" items.
From here on out, then, recognize that using the word
"stockpiling" is entirely consistent with the Red Cross
recommendations. They *are* recommending people stockpile
supplies.
THE COMMON DEFINITION OF "HOARD"
Many people think the word, "hoard" means to stockpile more than
you need. That's the implied meaning in the Red Cross text: they
recommend you stockpile a week's supply, but urge you not to
hoard.
But how much exactly do we need?
That depends on how long the electricity stays off in *your*
area, or for how many days, weeks or months your local grocery
stores experience food shortages. In fact, no person can accuracy
determine what the level of NEED really is, because the need
depends on the duration of the infrastructure failures. And that
duration is not known to any person.
Therefore, the common use of the word, "hoard," to mean
stockpiling more than you need is absolutely meaningless. No
person can accuse any other person of having more than they need
because neither person can determine how long the infrastructure
will be off-line.
This is obviously the use of the word by the Red Cross when they
say, "The Red Cross doesn't recommend hoarding supplies." In
context, their comments appear to say, "Don't stockpile more than
you need." But as we've just shown, because the need cannot
possibly be determined, the "don't hoard" statement from the Red
Cross is meaningless.
On the other hand, if the Red Cross takes the Webster's
definition of hoarding: "to collect and lay up," they stand in
contradiction, because they are without question recommending
people "stockpile" supplies.
USE THIS TEXT TO EDUCATE THE SKEPTICS
Copy the text we've published here. Reprint it and quote it in
the Y2K newsgroups and chat rooms. Educate people about what
"stockpiling" and "hoarding" really means. And remind people that
the American Red Cross is now recommending a one-week stockpile
of critical supplies.
USING THE WORD TO ACCUSE PEOPLE
The term, "Hoarding" has been unfairly used by Y2K skeptics and
critics to label and accuse those who are getting prepared by
purchasing extra supplies. But as we have just shown, anybody who
is "collecting and laying up" items in secret is engaged in
precisely what the dictionary defines as "hoarding."
When people tell you to purchase extra supplies but, "don't
hoard," they are contradicting themselves. The same is true when
people tell you to purchase extra supplies but don't "stockpile"
them. The two are linguistically identical.
Y2KNEWSWIRE warned readers several weeks ago about the public
use of the word, "hoarding." We told readers the word would be
unfairly used by those who aren't preparing to criticize those
who are, and that in time, people who are stockpiling supplies
would be called "hoarders." While we haven't seen this term
widely used yet, watch for it. It's an indication that we might
be heading for legislative restrictions on "hoarding" food.
Currently, it is not illegal to stockpile food in the United
States. But if we begin to hear the term, "hoarders" more and
more frequently, somebody will sooner or later call for a law to
prevent "hoarders" from "hoarding." And when that happens,
lawmakers will find themselves in a bizarre position where they
must define "hoarding" in order to enforce it.
This could lead to all sorts of strange situations where, for
example, law enforcement people are snooping through your
cupboard and counting how many cans of soup you've "hoarded." One
can too many and you're suddenly a criminal. "It's bad for the
country," they'll say, for you to hoard more than your "fair
share." Could you be arrested on, "Suspicion of hoarding?" Would
police man the grocery stores and monitor what you buy?
YOUR GROCERY BUYING HABITS ARE PROBABLY ALREADY BEING MONITORED
It's interesting to note that those now-popular grocery store
savings club cards have, in effect, created a database of the
food you buy. They use it for marketing purposes, to determine
what kinds of items you buy and then mail you related coupons and
offers. That's why the cards get you the discount: because the
grocery store is being paid by advertisers who want to reach
highly-targeted grocery consumers.
At the same time, a "food database" is obviously being
constructed that profiles your grocery buying habits. If you've
signed up for one of these grocery cards, this database *already*
contains not only the list of items you've bought, but also your
name and home address. How's that? Not only do these people have
the list of what you've bought, they also know where you live.
Could that database someday be used against you? A fairly simple
computer routine could red-flag any increase in your grocery
purchases, providing "evidence" that you're "hoarding" food.
Don't dismiss the possibility. Every database that tracks the
behavior of private citizens is just waiting to be abused. If you
believe in personal privacy, you'll avoid using those cards, and
instead, just buy your groceries from the stores that offer the
lowest prices *without* membership gimmicks.
This sounds amazingly similar, by the way, to the FDIC's Big
Brother banking regulation that would create similar profiles of
your banking activity and report any "suspicious" activity to the
authorities.
SMART PEOPLE IGNORE THE WORDS AND FOCUS ON THE ACTION
Enough of the definitions. No matter what people call it, it is
critical that you begin to *prepare* by stockpiling basic
supplies, just as the Red Cross suggests. If you haven't yet
accumulated enough supplies to meet the Red Cross level of
preparedness, start with that. Do the "one week" plan. Once
you've accomplished the one week plan, do the "one month" plan.
You'll find our 30-day contingency plan posted at:
y2knewswire.com
Once you've reached the 30-day plan, consider further stockpiles
of important supplies as determined by your own assessment of
"need."
SUMMARY OF RED CROSS RECOMMENDATIONS
[News]
Here's the summary of Red Cross recommendations:
FOOD: "Stock disaster supplies to last several days to a week
for yourself and those who live with you."
CASH: "Have some extra cash on hand in case computer-controlled
electronic transactions involving ATM cards, credit cards, and
the like cannot be processed."
GASOLINE: "Plan to fill your automobile gas tank a day or so
before 12/31/99."
COOKING: "In case the power fails, plan to use alternative
cooking devices..."
HEAT: "Have extra blankets, coats, hats, and gloves to keep warm.
"
LIGHT: "Have plenty of flashlights and extra batteries on hand."
SHELTERS: "Be prepared to relocate to a shelter for warmth and
protection during a prolonged power outage or if for any other
reason local officials request or require that you leave your
home."
WHO DISAGREES WITH THE RED CROSS?
[Commentary]
The Gartner Group, for one. They have strongly recommended
taking no cash out of the bank. Any skeptic maintaining the
indefensible line of, "do nothing" now finds themselves in
disagreement with the American Red Cross, an organization with a
well-known tradition of saving lives and helping people prepare
for -- and survive -- emergencies.
Don't cross the Red Cross! The Red Cross recommendations, in
fact, add tremendous credibility to the argument of preparedness
that has been promoted by individuals like Gary North and
organizations like Y2KNEWSWIRE. We are extremely pleased that the
Red Cross has finally joined us in recommending *some* level of
stockpiling supplies, although we hope the Red Cross will
increase their recommendation to at least a two-week supply.
This has caused a silent but dramatic shift in credibility on
the Y2K preparedness front. Over the last two years, Y2K skeptics
who wished to ridicule those calling for the stockpiling of
supplies often reverted to the well-worn, "Kook" name-calling
strategy. It worked extremely well, leveraging
emotionally-charged phrases and "radical" characterizations to
provide exactly the right justification millions of Americans
needed to do absolutely nothing.
But now the accusers find themselves at odds with the American
Red Cross. Where is the name calling now? Where are the public
statements by the best-known Y2K skeptics calling the American
Red Cross, "Ignoramuses" and "hucksters?" Which of these Y2K
accusers is willing to point their finger at the Red Cross and
call them a bunch of kooks?
You don't hear them. In fact, the courageous action by the Red
Cross is now serving to shut up the skeptics for good. The
position of "do nothing" is fast losing credibility. More and
more Americans are seeing the reality of the situation and taking
smart, prudent action to prepare with at least a one-week supply
of important items like food, medicine, cash, and so on. And more
people are beginning to realize that following the "do nothing"
advice of the skeptics could land you in a situation where you
have no food, no clean water, no heat and no medicine.
In short, the advice to do nothing is now being strongly equated
with stupidity.
For this reason, Y2KNEWSWIRE loudly and publicly gives the Red
Cross, "Two thumbs up" and encourages them to increase their
recommendation as conditions warrant. Thanks to the Red Cross,
loud Y2K skeptics and those engaged in "Kook" name-calling now
find themselves insulting the American Red Cross, and they are
increasingly being perceived as miscreant, non-constructive
individuals who have nothing important to add to the debate.
WHEN WILL THE PRESIDENT FOLLOW THE RED CROSS ADVICE?
[Commentary]
A recent poll conducted by Y2KNEWSWIRE indicates that 93% of our
readers believe the President should encourage the American
public to stockpile at least a 30-day supply of preparedness
items. Over half the poll respondents want the President to
recommend a 90-day supply. Obviously, because this poll
represents reader of Y2KNEWSWIRE, these numbers are certainly
higher than what might be found in the general public, but even
these poll results surprised us.
We're now publicly wondering when the President will, at minimum,
follow the advice of the American Red Cross. That's a one-week
stockpiling recommendation. It would not cause a panic, we think,
and would do tremendous good in increasing awareness of the Y2K
issue.
For those subscribers who are encouraging the President, John
Koskinen, and other national leaders to take action on Y2K, you
can now use the "Follow the Red Cross!" strategy. If these
leaders won't listen to the Red Cross recommendations, after all,
they must have great disregard for the safety of the American
public.
Encourage them to *start* with the Red Cross recommendations: up
to a one-week supply.
WHAT WILL BE THE IMPACT IF PEOPLE FOLLOW THE RED CROSS ADVICE?
[Commentary]
It's important to examine the potential impact when Americans
begin following the Red Cross advice.
FOOD: "Stock disaster supplies to last several days to a week
for yourself and those who live with you."
If people are stocking a week's worth of food, this will present
no major disruptions to the food industry. That is, unless
everybody waits until the last minute. However, the food supply
in America is plentiful, and as long as Americans begin early and
stock up a little at a time, the industry will hardly notice.
CASH: "Have some extra cash on hand in case computer-controlled
electronic transactions involving ATM cards, credit cards, and
the like cannot be processed."
We were surprised to hear the Red Cross make this recommendation.
These are frightening words to the banking industry, "Have some
extra cash on hand..." How much exactly? We're recommending a
one-month cash reserve. The Red Cross likely intends a one-week
reserve.
Examine this *carefully*. Suppose the average American household
makes somewhere around $36,000 / year (considering *both* parents,
where applicable). That's $3000 / month. A one-week supply of
cash is approximately $750. Multiply that by 100 million
households, and you end up with a cash withdrawal of $75 billion
in currency.
$75 billion in cash.
But the banks currently hold just $44 billion in cash.
This is a problem. We suspect the Red Cross did not realize
their one-week recommendation, if followed, would collapse the
cash reserve of the entire banking system. But this demonstrates
how vulnerable the banking system is right now.
The Federal Reserve comes to the rescue, of course, promising to
inject an additional $200 billion in cash into the system,
meaning that if Americans follow the Red Cross advice, there
should still be $125 billion remaining.
The life of the entire banking industry is riding on there being
"enough" cash to give customers their money. But the Red Cross
what somewhat vague about their recommendation, saying Americans
should have, "some" cash. What if Americans decide to simply cash
out their December, 1999 paycheck rather than depositing it in
the bank? That means $3000 per household, on average (these are
not scientific numbers, obviously, but we believe them to be
conservative). Multiple that by 750 households and you get a cash
demand of $300 billion. That's 50% more cash than even the
"rescue" package from the Federal Reserve makes available to the
entire banking industry. And therein lies the potential problem.
Then there's the corporate question: some local governments have
already recommended their payroll departments stockpile enough
cash to be able to pay the January, 2000 salaries. Businesses
will likely follow similar advice, pulling out extra cash in
late-1998 in order to meet payroll. Fortunately, if they pay
their employees in cash, those employees will subsequently need
less cash from the banks.
GASOLINE: "Plan to fill your automobile gas tank a day or so
before 12/31/99."
This effects of this one are obvious: massive lines at the gas
stations. The lines will add to the atmosphere of panic, and it
may help set off a run on food and other supplies.
Unfortunately, most people don't have much in the way of
external gasoline storage. Most can only store whatever their car
or truck holds. And that means they MUST wait until a day or two
before the rollover to top off their gasoline tanks.
COOKING: "In case the power fails, plan to use alternative
cooking devices..."
Good advice, we think. But how many people really have
alternative cooking devices? Not many. The best alternative
cooking device is a wood burning cookstove. You know, the big
iron stoves your great grandma might have cooked on.
Unfortunately, the supply of these items is very small compared
to the number of people that will probably want them. Many stoves
are already backordered, even with only 1% of the population
actually taking serious Y2K preparedness action.
If any significant number of people attempt to get woodstoves,
the shortage will be severe. Most people wanting them simply
won't get them.
But there are alternative cooking methods, such as the
camping-style propane stoves. In fact, these might be a lot more
practical for most people, and they are far less expensive. No
shortages currently, either. But the Red Cross recommends
*against* using such devices inside, because of the open flame
factor. Also, burning propane removes oxygen from the air, and if
you burn enough in a closed room, it could kill you.
HEAT: "Have extra blankets, coats, hats, and gloves to keep warm.
"
Again, good advice, but if the 2000 rollover is as cold as what
we're experiencing right now, extra blankets might not be good
enough. The best heat advice, of course, is to have a wood-fired
stove installed and to stockpile an ample supply of wood. If you
install a wood cookstove, as mentioned above, it also serves as a
heating device.
LIGHT: "Have plenty of flashlights and extra batteries on hand."
You can definitely expect a run on batteries and flashlights in
December, 1999. Even people who prepared early will consider
buying *extra* batteries, and the shelves will be bare by the
time December 31, 1999 rolls around.
Batteries are great, but they eventually run out. Better advice
is to buy high-end rechargeable batteries and a solar charger.
Because of this reason, many solar chargers are already
backordered. In any case, the people living in Seattle and
Portland won't have much luck with the solar chargers anyway:
they don't see the sun again until the Spring.
The Red Cross recommends against using candles because, again,
of the open flame factor. Candles are dangerous, they say. This
is probably correct for some users, but for the vast majority of
the population that isn't made up of consumer idiots, the safe
use of candles is a no-brainer. Just because some people burn
their houses down with Christmas candles doesn't mean everybody
will. We recommend stockpiling both candles and matches.
SHELTERS: "Be prepared to relocate to a shelter for warmth and
protection during a prolonged power outage or if for any other
reason local officials request or require that you leave your
home."
This is the interesting one. With this recommendation, the Red
Cross is essentially admitting the possibility that your one-week
supply might not be enough. The phrase, "prolonged power outage"
clearly intends this meaning. The advice also supposes that
officials might, for some reason, require you to leave your home.
The advice also assumes shelters will exist. A "shelter"
normally consists of a heated structure of some sort, plus some
stockpiled food, water and medical supplies. Is it reasonable to
expect that such shelters will exist? And if they do, will they
be able to handle a *nationwide* crisis?
The Red Cross has never been asked to respond to a nationwide
crisis like Y2K. When regions or cities are nailed by natural
disasters, the Red Cross is almost always stretched very thin. In
a nationwide crisis, it's reasonable to assume that the number of
shelters able to be constructed and stockpiled will be entirely
inadequate.
On this question, the President has the opportunity and
responsibility to increase the level of preparedness. Earlier in
1998, he publicly called for the stockpiling of Anthrax vaccines
in 120 cities. This was widely reported by nearly every major
news service, and the action was taken out of a fear that
terrorists might use biological weapons to attack American cities,
with New York and Washington D.C. being at the very top of the
list.
But no such call has gone out for the preparation of Y2K
shelters. There has been no urging of communities and citizens to
stockpile adequate supplies for shelters, and there has been no
nationwide coordination of the planning for such shelters.
WE MUST BEGIN STOCKING Y2K SHELTERS
Each day that passes without such efforts well underway is a
missed opportunity to construct and stockpile these shelters with
critical supplies. The shelters will need food, water, medicine
and heating supplies. They'll need medical volunteers and defense
volunteers. Someone will need to be in charge of securing the
shelters to prevent the theft of supplies by potentially
desperate gangs. Will this defense involve firearms? Local police?
The National Guard? Armed private citizens? Who will ensure the
safety of the people in the shelters and the supplies they depend
on?
These are critical questions the must be asked immediately. The
Red Cross has played an important role in bringing badly-needed
credibility to this issue, liberating it from the accusations
that preparedness actions are reserved only for kooks and whackos.
Now the world's best-known survival and emergency-preparedness
organization, the American Red Cross, has effectively exposed the
sheer stupidity of the "do nothing" argument. From this point
forward, it is no longer a question of WHETHER we should prepare,
it is only a question of HOW MUCH we should stockpile.
And that, friends, is the best progress we've seen so far on Y2K
awareness. |
