Start of the Third Millennium
Now that I’ve read the Dec. 19 column by your readers’ representative, Narda Zacchino, I am more disappointed than ever in The Times’ support for next month as “the start of the third millennium.” Why? Because she says that The Times has bowed to “the popular conception of the new millennium,” knowing full well that this conception is wrong.
Is it a proper function of a newspaper to support positions known to be wrong because they’re popular? If you believe that to be true, our society is in real trouble. How does your support of this popular--and clearly erroneous--conception fit in with the statement on the “Principles of the Los Angeles Times” you so proudly feature on the Dec. 19 front page that “our duty is to the truth”? How can your readers believe in the truth of anything you say when you admit that you know that what you’ve said in this case is untrue, but most people believe it, so that’s what you’ll say you believe?
TODD TERRES
Camarillo
*
Zacchino is right but not totally. There are two very similar calendars, both of which have a date Jan. 1, 2000, coming up very soon. One is the Christian Era, abbreviated CE, calendar which Zacchino so excellently describes. There is one problem with this calendar. It has to do with tracing the continuity of years BC with those AD. The other, similar calendar is the Common Era calendar, also abbreviated CE. It has a year 0. Thus there is no problem with dealing with events which cover the time period around the beginning of the calendar.
I don’t believe there are any statutes that make the Christian Era rather than the Common Era the official U.S. calendar. I suspect that it would violate the 1st Amendment to do so, as it would be promoting a religious calendar over a secular calendar. But why bother. I am going to have a good time this New Year’s Eve, and perhaps next year as well.
RICHARD FOY
Redondo Beach
*
Take heart all ye who hyperventilate whilst confronting those of us who assert the coming new year launches the next millennium. It’s all in the way you look at it. Instead of just “new,” consider 2000 a neonate. As such, you can fawn over it with the rest of us, spewing cliches engendered by any newborn. “This one’s gonna break a lotta hearts when it grows up. It’s cuter than a bug’s ear. Big for its age. Hard to believe it’s just 12 months shy of a first birthday. Appreciate now, these days; they just grow up way too fast. It sure has its mama’s smile but the chin is pure 1999.”
Try it. Kick back and enjoy. Now, take it away--Y2K!
PERRY ALLEN
Carlsbad
*
Jan. 1, 2000, will be the completion of a 2,000-year period. The beginning of the next millennium is 12:00:01 a.m. Jan. 2, 2000.
But why is everyone verbalizing the year as two thousand? Years are always verbalized in hundreds. We say nineteen hundred and ninety-nine, seventeen hundred and seventy-six.
Jan. 2, in the year twenty hundred and naught, begins the new millennium. It’s simple.
BOB FARRIS
Lakewood
* It seems unbelievable that all this excitement over the approaching 21st century and third millennium is the result of the birth of a poor Jewish boy on a bed of straw. Perhaps it’s time we concentrated more on the concept of loving our neighbor as ourselves than on a man-made date on a calendar.
ROBERT J. EVANS
Santa Monica
*
I guess the people who figure the end of 1999 is the end of the century are people who, when they were kids, played hide and seek by counting--not from one to 100--but from zero to 99.
DON FAWCETT
Los Angeles
*
For 50 years I have watched the waves from the Pacific Ocean gently caress the Manhattan Beach shoreline. The Y2K “hype” has, however, convinced me that this will all end at midnight Dec. 31.
I therefore plan to walk down to the beach on New Year’s Eve, dig my toes into the sand, sip my Jack Daniel’s and watch those gentle waves disappear forever!
R. TADDIKEN
Manhattan Beach
*
We can’t blame the “end of the millennium” or the Y2K problem for all our recent losses.
I used to shop regularly at Fedco, at Lucky and at a local store called Plowboys that had the best produce in town and reasonable prices. Plowboys was driven out by a redevelopment plan that never materialized, Fedco closed, Lucky was taken over. I used to bank at Great Western Bank, which has been swallowed up. I used to shop for fabrics at several stores; now they’ve all been taken over by the same owner, turned into smelly crafts stores with a few fabrics off in a corner.
I used to read the Los Angeles Times over breakfast. The Times still exists, but it is no longer delivered early enough to read every morning.
DOROTHY M. GOLDISH
Lakewood