Apollo BBS Archive - December 1991

Apollo BBS Archive - December 28 - 30, 1991

Mail from James Matlock
Date: 12/30/91  Time: 01:30:15

[A]bort, [N]ew only, [R]ead or [S]kip:Read

OK, I'll keep an eye out for movies we might both enjoy.  Perhaps we can ask
Dean Hathaway along and make it a threesome.
[A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Insty-reply

Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
 1:Sounds good but where can we line up three foxes?  I really haven't seen any
 2:of the 'new' movies from the last several years with the exception of The 
 3:Doors.  That was another Oliver Stone movie.  
 4:
 5:Take care, Rod
 6:end

Edit command:S

Saving message...

As for the message to which you replied...
[A]bort, [C]ontinue or [Z]ap:Zap

Mail from Pete Fischer
Date: 12/30/91  Time: 12:23:54

[A]bort, [N]ew only, [R]ead or [S]kip:Read

Are you a member of the Modemholics Anonymous? Do they have a chapter here
on Apollo? I will call soon, Pete
[A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Insty-reply

Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
 1:I usually get a daily modem fix unless of course I am on vacation.  Can one 
 2:ask specific medical questions on the St. Joseph BBS or is it specifically 
 3:for doctors?  -Rod
 4:end

Edit command:S

Saving message...

As for the message to which you replied...
[A]bort, [C]ontinue or [Z]ap:Zap

Mail from Pete Fischer
Date: 12/30/91  Time: 12:27:34

[A]bort, [N]ew only, [R]ead or [S]kip:Read

I see. I spend more and more3 time in Reality, these days. I used to be a
Sci Fi fan, some years ago. Lately I have been  interested in the latest
"wave" in SCIFI, that being Cyberpunk. Seems like there's a big difference
between "...without a physical body.." and "...playing Superman..." but
then, who's counting... Adios, Pete
[A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Zap

Post Office command:JN

*=* Journey to a SIG *=*

*=* $tatus Club Bulletin Board entered *=*

$tatus Club Bulletin Board command:$C

Press  to abort

Message: 8768
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: BEHOLD! .....
Subject: Baby Girl for J.H.
Date: 12/30/91  Time: 16:37:34

        Today James Hawley and his wife had their first child... A baby
girl!

        Congrats old man...  You are a Daddy!

*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=*  <-clif- Grin (-;

Message: 8769
Author: $ Felix Cat
Category: Believe it or not!
Subject: Baby Girl!
Date: 12/30/91  Time: 17:41:18

Congradulations James and Momma!  What did you name your daughter?

Message: 8770
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Believe it or not!
Subject: James a Daddy
Date: 12/30/91  Time: 18:02:40

Congratulations!

Please give other details...  weight, length, color of eyes, planned major
in college, etc.

Message: 8771
Author: $ Chris Neal
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Rod on Me
Date: 12/30/91  Time: 18:16:18

What did I do to you?
 
Better watch me with a gun in hand.   :-)

-Chris

$tatus Club Bulletin Board command:EC

You chose Chit-Chat

Subject:Chris/target

Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
 1:Somebody has to do it and since I am not planning on attending I though you 
 2:could volunteer in my stead.{_
 3:end

Edit command:S

Saving message...
The message is 8772

$tatus Club Bulletin Board command:EC

You chose Chit-Chat

Subject:Baby Girl

Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
 1:Congratulation James.  How about Maria?
 2:end

Edit command:S

Saving message...
The message is 8773

$tatus Club Bulletin Board command:JN

*=* Journey to a SIG *=*

*=* Public Bulletin Board entered *=*

Public Bulletin Board command:$C

Press  to abort

Message: 80938
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Religion
Subject: Xmas celebration 1/2
Date: 12/29/91  Time: 23:26:41

I'm glad my "Christmas Music" article got some people to talk about their
own views (and parodies!) on Christmas rituals.

Thanks for the info, Mr. Matlock, especially about Martin Lubcek.  Whenever
rock music is performed there's usually a bunch of gossip circulated about
the performers to satisfy the curiosity of their "fan club".  What a pity
this information about the author of "Silver Bells" wasn't circulated along
with the song.  We could all have had a good chuckle while we were indulging
in sentimental nostalgia at the same time.

So far, I don't think anybody has dared to change a word in the original
"Winnie the Pooh" books.  They're too much of a classic, like Dickens.  The
Disney corporation has played fast and loose with the stories though, and
with the characters.  Gopher?  *What* gopher?

I'm sorry, on the other hand, that Ms. Arik of Paradise Valley feels her
children are put upon by having to sing Christmas carols.  I certainly don't
think they should have to join in the ceremony (or be present at it) if they
don't want to.  Bill's comment about molested children was rather
thoughtful.

There isn't a easy answer to this one.  We can tell the majority they have
to shut up because they're making a minority feel bad.  We can tell them
they have to shut up in state-sponsored schools, but that's not an answer.

Message: 80939
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Religion
Subject: Xmas celebration 2/2
Date: 12/29/91  Time: 23:27:47

It's only a partial answer because the evidence of Christmas, and its
celebration by a "Christian" majority, is everywhere.  I wonder how Jewish
people (who must be the largest non-Christian group; not sure about the
committed atheists) feel about this.  It's all very ironic, since Jesus
himself was Jewish, and since the Christian Bible subsumes such a large
portion of the Jewish Scriptures.

Ms. Arik asks whether Christmas is a "religious" holiday or not.
Etymologically, a "religion" is something that "ties people together" (like
a "ligature").  Where all the people living in a geographic area share the
same religious belief, their religion does indeed tie them together.  When
people of different creeds migrate into the same area, religion is too often
a means of banding one group together against another group, which is
suspiciously similar to keeping people apart.

Once I went to the funeral of a Jewish friend and put on my little yarmulke
at the entrance to the synagogue and became Jewish for an hour or so.  I
lost nothing by it, and gained a great deal.  It's unfair if we make Jewish
people sing Christmas carols all the time, but don't they have any good
Hanukkah songs we can sing by way of exchange?

No doubt this will offend fundamentalists of every stripe, but where we go
wrong is in allowing form to supersede function.  If we approach religion in
such a way as to exclude other human beings, its very purpose has failed.

Message: 80940
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Jury Nullification
Date: 12/29/91  Time: 23:29:07

I find it ironic that people are now arguing about the power of the public
to declare a man innocent in defiance of the evidence, when the public have
complained for years about the exact converse: the power of the legal
machine to put criminals back on the streets in spite of their clear guilt.

Nevertheless, these two disputes only appear to be about opposite things.
In reality they're about the same thing: whether justice, in the broadest
sense of the word, is to be administered by a restricted and privileged
group, or according to common sense and the will of the people.

I don't know the history of jury nullification in England, or the extent to
which the right of a jury to find "not guilty" in spite of the evidence has
been discussed there as a separately identifiable concept.  One thing that
strikes me is that the line between jury nullification and "reasonable
doubt" is a fuzzy one at best.  If twenty people witnessed a murder and the
jury finds not guilty in spite of them, it's pretty obvious that the jury
has taken something else into consideration besides the law and the facts of
the case.  But if there were only two witnesses, there could be reasonable
doubt.  The witnesses could be lying, or mistaken about identity.  If we
grant the jury an unchallengeable right to decide that there was reasonable
doubt, the power we call "jury nullification" falls out automatically
without need of further definition.  And since the boundary *is* a fuzzy
one, to jeopardize that right would be extremely dangerous to justice.

Message: 80941
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Jury Null (2/7)
Date: 12/29/91  Time: 23:30:23

Modern law demands that a jury be impartial, and "impartiality" includes not
only lack of prejudice for or against the parties in a case, but also (for
preference) a complete ignorance of the facts of the case prior to the
trial.  Publicity in the news media means that this "complete ignorance"
cannot always be achieved, but it is a theoretical ideal that the jury
should decide the case only on the evidence presented in court.  This was
not always true.  Way back in "time immemorial", when the institution we
call a jury first began, jurors were chosen not for their ignorance of a
case, but for their knowledge of it.  The jurors were not only arbiters, but
also a source of the evidence itself.  With this much authority, there could
be no reasonable grounds to deny them the right to find a defendant not
guilty if they wished.

Today we would see great danger in allowing a jury of insiders to judge a
case.  The institution of the jury was, however, a great advance over the
old methods such as trial by ordeal, which one writer facetiously described
as making the defendant "plunge his head in boiling ploughshares" to decide
whether he was guilty or not.  The phrase "since time immemorial", used to
describe the merit of antiquity bestowed on ancient customs and rights at
common law, is not a vague one, but has a precise meaning in English law.
It means, specifically, "since the year 1189" (or before).  This year marked
the death of Henry II, who instituted a large number of legal reforms and
advances during his reign.

Message: 80942
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Jury Null (3/7)
Date: 12/29/91  Time: 23:31:35

Jury nullification played an important part in shaping law -- and presumably
social policy -- in at least one period of English history.  The Industrial
Revolution triggered a great wave of migration from rural districts into the
cities, and in doing so tore apart the social fabric of the nation.
Millions of people were cast into the role of wage slaves in a new and
hostile environment.  Poverty in the cities became rampant, and with it,
crime.  This is not to say that there was no help at all for the poor in the
English system.  The medieval church had a role in looking after the poor;
later, changing conditions necessitated the Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601 to
make further provision.  But small communities have a way of looking after
their own.  The breaking up of these communities caused an enormous increase
of crime in the newly populated cities.  The reaction of the legal system
was a naive attempt to *suppress* crime with harsher and harsher laws.

Medieval justice had not been especially lenient.  We all know from our
Robin Hood legends that hanging was the penalty for poaching deer in the
King's forests.  But since medieval times, justice had at least followed a
trend toward increasing humaneness.  Torture and burning at the stake were
abolished.  The last public beheading for treason on Tower Hill occurred in
1753, if I remember correctly.  Hanging remained, though its juicy
accompaniments of drawing and quartering had long since been done away with.

At some time between 1700 and 1800, this trend toward greater humaneness was
sharply reversed.

Message: 80943
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Jury Null (4/7)
Date: 12/29/91  Time: 23:32:44

In 1700, about fifty offenses rendered the criminal liable to the death
penalty.  By the year 1800, somewhere between 220 and 230 offenses were
punishable by death.  Nobody was quite sure how many there were, but they
included such crimes as stealing turnips, associating with gypsies, cutting
down a tree, damaging a fishpond, writing threatening letters, being a
"soldier or mariner wandering without a pass", and "impersonating an out-
pensioner at Greenwich Hospital".  Whatever you did wrong, the penalty was
death by hanging.  This state of affairs gained English law of the time its
name of "the Bloody Code", as Sheldon pointed out in his article.

The emphasis was strongly on property crimes, and the vast majority of those
guilty of such crimes perpetrated them because they had no property at all.
A large number of these crimes -- not all, of course -- were committed out
of sheer survival needs.  People were hanged for stealing vegetables to eat,
or a loaf of bread from a doorstep.

What was most terrible of all was the enormous number of children, many of
them very young, publicly executed for petty crimes.  The age of criminal
responsibility was seven years.  In 1801, Andrew Brenning, aged thirteen,
was publicly hanged for breaking into a house and stealing a spoon.  And in
1808, a girl aged seven was publicly hanged at Lynn, in Norfolk.

The official argument for retaining such Draconian punishments was usually
the same.

Message: 80944
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Jury Null (5/7)
Date: 12/29/91  Time: 23:33:58

In 1800, a boy aged ten was sentenced to hang for "secreting notes" at the
Chelmsford Post Office.  Spectators in the crowded court openly expressed
their horror.  Yet the judge upheld the sentence, writing later of "the
infinite danger of its going abroad into the world that a child might commit
such a crime with impunity..."

There is a great gulf of difference between "impunity" and a death sentence.
The Bloody Code was not only inhumane, but ineffective in suppressing crime.
Yet the judges' view of the time was summed up in the infamous words of Lord
Wynford, Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas: "Nolemus leges Angliae
mutari" -- "We do not wish the laws of England to be changed".

We have good grounds to suppose that the average citizen thought it not only
barbarous, but absurd, to strangle children publicly to death for quite
minor transgressions.  We can also suppose that the voice of the "average
citizen" was never heard when the making of the country's laws was being
discussed.  Universal suffrage was still more than a century in the future.
To even have a vote, you not only had to be male, but you also had to own a
certain amount of real estate.

However, the ordinary man could still make his voice heard through the jury
system.  And clearly he did.  In 1819, the House of Commons had received
twelve thousand petitions in favor of reducing the severity of the law.

Message: 80945
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Jury Null (6/7)
Date: 12/29/91  Time: 23:35:12

These petitions were from local citizens, from businessmen of every kind
from bleachers to calico printers, from the Corporation of London, from
bankers in 214 cities and towns.  They all cited the same complaint: that
when juries perceived that the statutory punishment was out of all
proportion to the severity of the crime, most of them did justice according
to their own lights by refusing to convict the defendant -- even when he was
obviously guilty.  The harsh deterrents provided by law were no deterrent at
all, because in practice they were usually never applied.  In the meantime,
many criminals got away scot-free with their petty crimes.

Slowly, over the next few decades, the reactionary establishment was forced
to respond to these petitions and others like them, and to change the law of
England to something more closely resembling true justice.  And the 19th
century was one of great social reform.

The right of jury nullification was certainly respected.  In 1817, William
Hone, a friend of Charles Lamb, was tried for the offense of "blasphemy"
before Lord Ellenborough, one of the most stiff-necked of judges.  On the
evidence, Ellenborough directed the jury to find the defendant guilty.
Instead, they exercised their right and acquitted him.  Ellenborough died
shortly afterwards; it is said that the shock of being defied in this way
hastened his death.  It would be nice if every tyrant would obligingly roll
over and die when he was given the finger.  Unfortunately that doesn't
always happen; but the principle of jury nullification definitely helps.

Message: 80946
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Jury Null (7/7)
Date: 12/29/91  Time: 23:36:24

I find it astounding, and frightening too, that anyone would be so deluded
as to think that the right of jury nullification amounts to "tyranny by
jury".  Such a situation *could* arise in a small community tightly
controlled by some local gang, where jurors could be threatened into letting
gang members get by with all kinds of crimes.  While jurors can still be
threatened today, such conditions are far less applicable in today's larger
communities.

Furthermore, "jury nullification" is a one-way principle.  It does not grant
the jury a right to convict people of crimes they aren't guilty of.  If a
prejudiced jury does convict a defendant in spite of inadequate evidence,
the defendant still has the right of appeal through the legal system.  Jury
nullification can only operate against unfair laws, not against individuals.

So this principle is every bit as relevant today as it ever was -- perhaps
more so in this period of history.  Anybody who argues against its validity
must be immediately suspected of the dreadful fear that ordinary people's
interests, and views, might somehow take precedence over those of the
privileged few with the power to make, or apply, the law.  Sheldon's article
is an awful lot of words wrapped around a feeble whine of protest against
taking away some of the power to decide what is "fair" from people like
himself, and placing it where it belongs -- with the people at large.

Message: 80947
Author: James Matlock
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon/last few
Date: 12/30/91  Time: 01:54:13

The obvious danger of jury nullification is that some juries might use
it to very injust ends.  Take as a hypothetical, the trial of a white
southern male accused of lynching a black man who was suspected by the
accused of, say, "consorting with white women."  Now, a jury of such a man's
peers might, even if they felt the accused was clearly guilty of murder,
acquit him on the basis of what we might refer to as cultural or political
sympathies.  Or, to reverse matters, we might imagine a black man accused of
murdering a white southerner with a reputation for brutally abusing blacks. 
A jury made up of the peers of the accused might acquit him similarly.
 
The problem with this argument is that there is nothing to prevent such
people from behaving in exactly the same way, even if explicit, open
nullification is disallowed.  The people who would most likely feel
constrained by an outlawing of nullification would not be those whose
opinion of the law was already disdainful: it would be those whose respect
for the law might outweigh their conscience -- just as laws prohibiting
concealed weapons do not frustrate those who are willing to commit murder.

Message: 80948
Author: James Matlock
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: CONT.
Date: 12/30/91  Time: 02:12:00

The obvious difference between the United States and England of the 18th
century is that here we can vote the legislators out and lobby for a change
in the law whereas (if it is not the oversimplification of a foreigner, both
in time and space) the King and his cronies could do whatever they pleased.
 
The problem with this argument, however, is that it is entirely plausible
that laws may be passed and approved of by a majority which are nevertheless
intrinsically immoral.  Or, slightly different, even laws which are
essentially moral are finitely framed and cannot account for every possible
contingency and exception.  Is it anarchy when men of conscience refuse to
throw a defendant on the "mercy of the court," when the court is unable
(because of mandatory sentencing) or unwilling to be merciful in the
sentencing of an individual who is guilty of breaking the letter of the law
but not the spirit?  It seems to me that what so many people like judge
Sheldon forget, is that laws are passed with an *intent* in mind, and not
merely to be applied like meaningless symbols in a game of formal logic.  To
convict a man of breaking a law whose intent has not been properly addressed
is to make a mockery of the law by upholding an empty shell.  
 
How then, do we decide when the intent of the law has been "properly"
addressed, and who decides this?  We all do, as jurors.  If it can be
truthfully argued that jurors are in no position to make such judgments,
then it follows naturally from this that these same jurors lack the judgment
to elect those who would make such judgments.        (CONT.)

Message: 80949
Author: James Matlock
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: CONT.
Date: 12/30/91  Time: 02:25:42

In fact, the latter requires an even greater level of judgment than the
former.  How much easier it is to decide for one's self the intent and
morality of laws than it is to know this and also be capable of determining
the character and intelligence of a stranger who should be capable of
discerning the same truths.  In actual practice, this chain grows even
longer.  For we do not elect judges: we elect politicians, who in turn
appoint judges.
 
It might be argued that a juror is not capable of making judgments which
require special knowledge of the procedures of law: but we are speaking of
moral judgments, not legal judgments.  And again, if a man is not capable of
making his own moral decisions correctly, if he lacks the intelligence to
distinguish between rightness and obedience, he surely lacks the capacity to
elect those who would make such judgments.

Message: 80950
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Artsy Mike
Date: 12/30/91  Time: 07:11:46

Nice banner, Mike!
 
It looked good even through the line noise!
 
And looks even better without the line noise, I might add!

Message: 80951
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Politics
Subject: Nullification
Date: 12/30/91  Time: 07:12:14

Interesting discussion re jury nullification.
 
Let me state unequivocally that I think jury nullification is a good thing
in principle.  Assuming, that is, that the jury is given all the relevant
facts.  
 
The case of the black man (I can't think of his name.  Ronnie something?)
who shot and killed the white son of a Mesa judge not too long ago comes to
mind.  The  suspect pled self defense, but was convicted.  The jury,
however, was not allowed to hear evidence of the victim's previous
aggressive behavior against blacks.  It is the exclusion of relevant facts,
IMHO, that causes more damage to our criminal justice system, than unjust
laws or sentences.
 
And Gordon makes a good point about juries being able to affect unjust laws
if enough of them exercise their right to nullify charges.
 
One thing that impresses me about our system of government is how many
subtle, informal checks and balances it contains.  Throughout our history
(I'll bet Archimedes disagrees with this!) the trend has been toward
improvement; aberrations get corrected sooner or later.

Message: 80952
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Silly, Green!
Date: 12/30/91  Time: 07:12:35

> Don't you get it, Bill ? Everything Felix says is a joke.
 
Now, now, Green.  
 
Felix is an all right guy.  I've known him to be involved seriously in many
discussions over the years.  If he says he intended his remarks as a joke, I
believe him.

Message: 80953
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon-Carols
Date: 12/30/91  Time: 07:13:03

> It's unfair if we make Jewish people sing Christmas carols all
> the time, but don't they have any good Hanukkah songs we can
> sing by way of exchange?
 
As a matter of fact, they do.  At one of my children's schools the holiday
music program consisted of some generic Solstice (Ha!) songs ("Jingle
Bells," "Winter Wonderland," etc.) a Christmas Carol ("Silent Night," I
believe) and a Hanukkah carol (I have no idea what the title was, but had to
do with the candles and light which are central to Hanukkah.)
 
A nice program all around!

Message: 80954
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod-Someplace Else
Date: 12/30/91  Time: 07:13:27

> To tell you the truth I'd rather be somewhere else.
 
Me too.  On Tahiti with Kim Bassinger and the Grace Kelly of "To Catch a
Thief" might be a good start.

Message: 80955
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Banks 1/2
Date: 12/30/91  Time: 07:50:34

NI> If they had the ability to look elsewhere, they could have more than
NI> satisfied what was owed them.

Well, there are three answers to that.  The first is that as Fred Smith
questioned in a later message; I did overstate the case slightly:  they do
not have that capability for all banks and all accounts yet, but they do
have it for many, and where they don't have it they often have access to
account "overviews" -- i.e., undetailed listings of account names, perhaps
with a statistical synopsis of account activity but without specifics and
without balances.  The computer system they ordered a few years ago on their
"Five Year Plan" has the capacity, or is supposed to have, to access any
bank account desired -- the object was to eventually do away with tax
returns altogether and just send you a bill each year and deduct the amount
from your bank account.  The problem is the system they bought was more
expensive and had less capacity than other systems, and there was a lawsuit
over that which held up implementation of some aspects of their system, plus
they have had problems with garbage-in, garbage-out -- a case of someone
selling them a bill of goods on software so huge no one could ever test all
capabilities of it in 3,000 years.  So there have been problems.

The 2nd reason is that they have a very high personnel turnover and people
are constantly "in training;" likely as not the guy who worked on you was
the latest newchum in the department.  The 3rd reason is that they are not

Message: 80956
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Banks 2/2
Date: 12/30/91  Time: 07:51:25

rewarded for efficiency, innovation, or initiative; they are rewarded for
specific assignments completed.

You wouldn't believe the contradictory garbage I get from three different
offices of the Illegal Revenue Service, none of which know what any of the
others are doing or why.

In any event, if they don't have computer access to your account, they have
access by simply walking into your bank and handing the comptroller a
'pocket summons' -- basically a piece of paper with the word "SUMMONS"
across the top of it which has no more legal standing than if I scribbled
"SUMMONS" on a scrap of paper and handed it to a bank officer.  But the
comptroller will comply and give them whatever information they want.

Message: 80957
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Gov't propaganda
Date: 12/30/91  Time: 07:52:29

FS> It's true that thru gvt activities some of the FRNs in circulation
FS> represent gvt (that's really us) debt.  Clearly, (at least to me) we
FS> had lots of FRNs in circulation when there was essentially no national
FS> debt for them to "be".

When, since 1934, have we ever had "essentially no national debt"?  What you
suggest amounts to a contradiction in terms; a Federal Reserve "Note" is an
I.O.U. from the U.S. government to the Federal Reserve Bank.  It cannot
exist without a national debt; that is its only reason for existing.

FS> You only have to go back a few years to the Carter Administration to
FS> reach a time when the national debt was relatively small.

And if you take *that* "national debt" as current at that time, it was huge,
and you only have to "go back a few years" before that to see a national
debt that (only by comparison) was "relatively small."

Fred, you are being taken in by statistical time periods; the same kind of
propaganda as the gov't reports put out when they say the inflation rate is
*only* two and a half percent this year.  That's true, over *last* year, if
you ignore the inflation we are deferring to our children in the national
debt and its interest.  If you want the truth, you have to look at the whole
picture, Fred, not just the part the gov't and the banksters want you to
see.

Message: 80958
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Which more wealthy?
Date: 12/30/91  Time: 07:53:50

FS> While I tend to agree with you that metal, in the form of guns, has
FS> generally been rising in value I'm going to go back to my past question
FS> to you, which you always ignore, ==>>  Who is in command of vast wealth
FS> these days, people who have lots of that wonderfull metal shaped like
FS> guns in their broom closet while they wait for "that day" or the people
FS> who have entered the FRN fray and simply treated guns as a commodity
FS> (just like wheat, gold, land, pork bellies, etc) and gotten rich thru
FS> their efforts at INVESTING their assests?

I don't believe I have ignored that question at all, but if I have, its
because you are not asking me which of the two are more "wealthy," though
that's the word you use.  You are actually asking me which of the two wields
more apparent power.  The answer to *that* question is your pork belly
trader, of course, and I use the term "apparent power" advisedly, because
his power comes from fraud -- he actually owns absolutely nothing, and what
power he wields flows from fraudulent gov't, and will collapse when gov't
collapses.  Therefore, by my definition, he is a pauper.  Contrariwise, the
wealthy individual by *my* definition is wealthy whether gov't agrees or
not, or even exists or not, because my standard of wealth is based upon
substance and principle, not fraud.

Message: 80959
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Saved the day
Date: 12/30/91  Time: 07:54:38

FS> Can you recount any instance where gold really saved the day in a
FS> major economic chaos situation??

Certainly.  Check out the economic conditions on the eve of the
Constitutional Convention, and compare them with the economic conditions one
year later after gold and silver coin were established as the Constitutional
monetary standard.

I've already gone over that with the documentation and citations, etc., for
your edification, so I won't take up space with it again.

Message: 80960
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Free money?
Date: 12/30/91  Time: 07:56:01

FS> As in the past, and as I've heard recently in some countries with some
FS> economic problems, the most likely material that will be pressed into
FS> service as currency will be tobacco (cigarettes).  Why?  Because THAT"S
FS> what lots of people have that is both convientent, easily denominated,
FS> and generally available.

I find it hard to believe you drew that conclusion from that data.  You're
right that in the absence of a medium of exchange of any *value*, many
people have and will turn to something like cigarets to use as currency. 
However, it is certainly *not* because that's what lots of people have that
is both convenient, easily denominated, and generally available!  If that
were true, why not use dirt for money, Fred?  I mean, dirt is certainly more
convenient and available than cigarets!  Lots of people have it and if they
don't it is freely available for the scooping up, and it is easily
denominated in either weight, volume, or the size of pebbles contained
therein.

The reason why they don't use dirt, Fred, is precisely that:  it *is* freely
available; everyone has as much of it as they need or want, and there is no
incentive to trade their labor for it.  Cigarets, at least, are desired by a
segment of society which smokes, and non-smokers have a trading advantage
when tobacco is used as currency.
[Continued]

Message: 80961
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Mediums/money 2/6
Date: 12/30/91  Time: 07:57:00

It boils down to this:  When dirt is all you have, cigarets are more
valuable than dirt because they are both scarce and desired -- either
because people like to smoke or because people know people who like to
smoke.

Salt is a necessary dietary item for good health and is also necessary for
preserving food.  When salt is freely available to anyone who wants it, it
is a worthless medium to use as currency.  But when it is not freely
available, and takes labor to produce it, it becomes more valuable than some
other medium which takes less labor to produce and is therefore more freely
available.  Salt has been used by many societies as money.

Silver is generally more scarce and requires more labor to produce than
dirt, cigarets, or salt, and it is pretty as well as having some industrial
uses.  Thus, ounce for ounce, silver is more valuable than dirt, cigarets,
or salt -- at least as long as dirt, cigarets, and salt are available.

Gold is generally more scarce -- has *always* been more scarce -- and
requires more labor to produce than dirt, cigarets, salt, or silver, it is
prettier than silver to many observers and has at least as many, if not
more, industrial uses.  Therefore, it is more valuable than any of the
others.
[Continued]

Message: 80962
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Minted Coins 3/6
Date: 12/30/91  Time: 07:58:17

Both gold and silver, when minted into coins of calibrated weight and
purity, and alloyed with copper so as to reduce wear, and stamped in a
manner which discourages both nibbling away at the edges and counterfeiting,
require more labor to produce than equal weights of either gold or silver,
and are therefore inevitably more scarce than either gold or silver, though
I suppose an intense effort could be made with at least a small success to
overcome this advantage, but it eludes me as to why anyone would try.

The additional labor required to mint coins as described above, moreover,
doesn't merely add cosmetic value; it adds *real* value by virtue of the
fact that such coins become trustworthy in trade -- tradespeople know how
much labor they are worth, and they know they will always -- at least into
the foreseeable future -- be worth the same thing, and they know they can
invest them at some risk and hope to make a profit, but they also know if
they just keep them they will at least be worth the same tomorrow and ten
years from now as they are worth now.

Now, I am perfectly willing to admit that if a means were developed to mine
or "manufacture" or magically conjure up unlimited amounts of gold or
silver, either one, their value as a medium of exchange would be reduced --
in fact, improvements in silver production toward the latter part of the
1800's contributed greatly to the problems with bimetallism which resulted
[Continued]

Message: 80963
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Paper money 4/6
Date: 12/30/91  Time: 07:59:19

in silver being removed as a monetary standard for a year or so in 1873, and
again permanently in 1900.  In which case the appropriate thing to do, the
*honest* and *principled* thing to do, is choose another substance with the
same qualities of value as a medium of exchange -- platinum, perhaps.

Up until now in this discussion, we haven't mentioned "paper," so lets
mention it.  The average individual these days would find it difficult to
produce paper in any quality or quantity, but paper mills have been
constructed which can produce virtually unlimited quantities of the stuff in
very high quality.  In our society, therefore, paper is next to worthless
(expensive office supply stores notwithstanding).  The only thing that makes
our paper money exchangeable in the marketplace for anything of value is the
labor it took not to produce *it*, but the labor it took to produce the debt
it represents.  (The labor it will take our children in the future to *pay*
that debt isn't even part of the current value; that is a freebie to the
owners of the FED.)

A lot of people don't realize it, but the way that labor attaches to the
Federal Reserve Note is by the age-old process of putting up collateral for
the loan.  These intrinsically worthless pieces of paper are backed by
"government securities."  What are those government securities backed by? 
They are backed by the collateral taxing power of the United States
Government.  You and me, brother, someday working when and where we are
[Continued]

Message: 80964
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Hyperinflation
Date: 12/30/91  Time: 08:01:09

 putting new prices on their inventory, and when they get done at one end of
the store they'll go back to the other end and start over.  It will be the
only way they can keep up.  Pretty soon the individual federal reserve note
will be worth so little, it will be cheaper to burn it in your fireplace for
heat than it will be to buy a Presto-log.

Of course, it may not happen that way.  When the FED sees that the only way
to jump-start the economy is to reduce the prime lending rate to zero, or
perhaps even before then, it may simply decide to let us rot like it did
between 1929 and the start of World War II.  It may decide -- its foreign
bankster owners may decide -- to not worry about us, and instead concentrate
on those great markets developing in the emerging ex-Soviet Republics. 
After all, what do you think that great theatre act in the Soviet Union was
all about, anyway?  It was to re-form those countries into a configuration
which could be exploited by the world banksters; that's why David
Rockefeller went over there in 1978 and why Nice Guy Gorby immediately
popped out of the woodwork when he left.

So, just hang loose, Fred.  You don't have to believe a word I've said.  The
proof may be here by the end of the new year; with all probability by the
end of 1995, and very definitely by the end of the decade.  Then you can
bring out your cigarets and offer to exchange them for food, and I'll do the
same with my substance of intrinsic value, and we'll see who survives most
comfortably.

Message: 80965
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Soviets
Date: 12/30/91  Time: 11:10:26

Ummm, how long have the banksters owned the Soviet Union ???
And *how* have they owned *it* ?

Message: 80966
Author: $ Fred Smith
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: FRNs are your friend
Date: 12/30/91  Time: 15:54:17

Again, you are looking at only half the picture.  Lets say, for argument
sake, that the total amount of FRNs is $100 and the debt is $1.  Compare
that to a total FRNs of $200 but a debt of $20.  In the first case, each
FRN represents 99% value and 1% debt.  In the second case each FRN
represents 90% value and 10% debt.  Then throw in whether or not the current
income is or is not sufficent to cover the debt service OR if the printing
of MORE FRNs is needed to cover debt service.
  It is not true that the only reason for FRNs is as debt.  They exist also
as a medium of exchange and could be around with or without any national
debt.
  I see you answered my question of who is really "wealthy" by engaging in
a burst of semantics over the definition of wealthy and eventually ending
with an Alice in Wonderland world view.  There is no such thing as
"apparent"
power.  Either one has power or one doesn't.  The pork belly traders may
not meet with your approval but I didn't ask who met your approval.
I asked who controlls the wealth?  Who has the big cars?  Who vacations in
Tahiti 6 months of the year?  And who has CONSISTENTLY been doing so year
after year after year???  The "gold folks" or the people who thru themselves
into the FRN fray?  You are welcome to your world view but so much of it
just seems basically pointless to me that I don't understand the attraction.

Message: 80967
Author: $ Fred Smith
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: ARCH/FRNs redux
Date: 12/30/91  Time: 15:55:52

The last message was also mainly to ARCH.
   
There is no comparison to the times of the Constitutional Convention and
present day.  Prior to the CC there was ALL manor of various states public
and private currency in circulation. There was no control on much of any
of it.  It wasn't the fact that the gold standard was implemented that
made the difference, it was the fact that SOME standard and form of control
was implemented that made the difference.  I have no doubt that a FEDERAL
Tobbacco standard would have worked as well.
  And from one of your messages about paper money it seems you still don't
understand the purpose of a medium of exchange.  It is NOT necessary for a
medium of exchange to have an intrinsic value.  This country got along, and
still could, just fine on paper money.  I'm not familiar with the Japanese
monetary system but I would imagine it is a lot like ours, i.e, based on
paper money.  Yet they too have done just fine with such a system,
consistently improving their standard of living over the years.
  As far as your prediction of Gloom and Doom sometime between 1 and 10
years from now, all I can say is, I guess I'll just have to risk it!!

Message: 80968
Author: $ Fred Smith
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Beau
Date: 12/30/91  Time: 15:56:55

RE: Mandatory Ins
It's true that a case can be made that if insurance companies didn't have to
write policies for the drunkards, senile, and etc, that the rates would be
lower cuz they wouldn't have to pay as often.  BUT, that would only be true
if ALL rates were based on ACTUAL costs of claims by the different Rate
Groups paying.  SInce no one is allowed to see the Insurance Companies
books, no one really knows if the premiums are *really* in line with the
risks.  They could be gouging the high risk group or they may be
undercharging them.  And "they wouldn't have to pay off as often" is only
true if the only accidents the high risk group has is with each other.
if they run into a normal insured then the normal insured's
company will be paying under the uninsured coverage so the fewer high risk
people there are who are covered, the higher your rates might go.
  It is not hard to imagine that the insurance companies would be pressured
to keep the high risk rates artifically low so "they can afford insurance".
Of course, the only way they can make up the difference is to charge
good drivers more.

Message: 80969
Author: $ Fred Smith
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon Little
Date: 12/30/91  Time: 15:57:26

Thanks for that excellent historical background on Jury Nullification.  I
was
going to ask if you knew if the wide scale use of the death penalty seemed
to produce the desired reduction in crime but you addressed that in the
installments.

Message: 80970
Author: $ Fred Smith
Category: My Dinner with...
Subject: Matlock/Jury Null
Date: 12/30/91  Time: 15:58:08

Amoungst your other points on Jury Null one of the ones that is perhaps
worth highlighting is the idea of whether the jury is competent to be
allowed to decide on the "fairness" of the law.  It would seem that for many
situations, it is easier to see the fairness or lack thereof, of a
particular law and it's specific application than it is to figure out the
true quilt or innocence of the accused.
  I'm not sure, but jury nullification might be a far more effective
feedback mechanism on our laws the the current system of lobbying
by all mannor of high powered interest groups who are more interested in
what the law can do for them then in provideing justice.

Message: 80971
Author: $ Felix Cat
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bill
Date: 12/30/91  Time: 17:19:36

Re:  but when a school promotes an atmosphere embracing any religious belief

That's just it Bill.  The schools don't.  It's against the law.  They are
not even allowed a moment of silence for students to pray or meditate to the
god of their choice.  And it was done for the very reason that Arik was
complaining about.  Our public schools are about as godless as we can make
them.

Message: 80972
Author: $ Felix Cat
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bill
Date: 12/30/91  Time: 17:21:00

Re:  I take them seriously unless they're accompanied by a
"" or ":)" or some such.

Sorry about that Bill.  I'll try to be more careful in the future.

:-)  (-:  :-)  (-:  :-)  :-)  (-:  :-)  (-:  :-)  (-:  :-)  (-:

Message: 80973
Author: $ Felix Cat
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Green
Date: 12/30/91  Time: 17:22:53

Re:  Everything Felix says is a joke.

GREEN LANTERN

There's another joke!  Get it Green?

Message: 80974
Author: $ Felix Cat
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: B Dog
Date: 12/30/91  Time: 17:26:12

Re:  Don't you folks realize that mandatory insurance is the *root cause* of
all of this government meddling?

I agree.  The best government is the least government.  Let's vote all them
suckers out of office.

Message: 80975
Author: $ Felix Cat
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod
Date: 12/30/91  Time: 17:27:39

Re:  I worship socks that have been worn more than 100 times without being
washed.  At least I can feel, touch, see and definitely smell my source of
religion.

If you do, I have no doubt that you can.

Message: 80976
Author: $ Felix Cat
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod
Date: 12/30/91  Time: 17:29:43

Re:  He has a 80's Toyota P/U with full coverage for $50. per month.

Doesn't Calif. have "no fault" insurance?  That's the same insurance AZ
voted against about a year ago?

Message: 80977
Author: $ Felix Cat
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon
Date: 12/30/91  Time: 17:36:02

Re:  No doubt this will offend fundamentalists of every stripe

I don't think so Gordon.  It doesn't offend me.  I don't consider myself a
fundamentalist, but I'm sure a few people on this BBS do.  I agree with what
you say.  I bet even Green agrees with what you said.

Message: 80978
Author: $ Green Lantern
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Felix/Sarcasm
Date: 12/30/91  Time: 18:54:32

What a funny attempt at sarcasm !

Message: 80979
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: James/King & cronies
Date: 12/30/91  Time: 21:22:40

Well, it is an oversimplification to say that the King could do whatever he
pleased in the 1700s; but it certainly captures the spirit of the situation
at a time when government was quite a way from being truly representative.
Anyone was free to lobby for a change in the law; but a lobby wouldn't have
much clout if it wasn't backed up by votes.

I'm more concerned, though, with the oversimplification on the other side.
If lobbying and the political power of the American public were as effective
as they ought to be, we should after all this time have a government and
legal code tailored fairly precisely to the satisfaction of the voters.
While the world has seen far worse governments -- and even bearing in mind
that voters can't agree among themselves anyway -- most people would agree
that we're far from this utopian goal, or even a pragmatic imitation of it.
We have only a crudely chiseled first cut at what a government ought to look
like, with altogether too much material left on it, and lumps and bumps all
over the place.  The IRS "wart" is just one particularly glaring example
whose behavior most people (not just Arch) strongly disapprove of.  Under a
responsive system it ought to be severely modified, if not hacked right off.
The sculpture metaphor is a useful one because a government can be about as
responsive as stone to the welfare of its citizens.

And yes, the law can only be a very blunt instrument at best, much in need
of fine tuning by intelligent human interpretation.

Message: 80980
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Felix
Date: 12/30/91  Time: 21:55:04

I don't know much about California's insurance laws.  I was on this BBS late
last night and when I got on tonight and captured the 'new' messages I see
that I have 51K to read.  No wonder I haven't read a book recently.  Just
reading this board is enough.

I have an extra pair of socks if you like and will be glad to ship them to
you.  The reason they must be worn at least 100 times before they become a
deity is at that stage they are really holy.

Take care, Rod

P.S.  If you want to join my sock religion it is a good idea to start out
when you have a bad cold and then work up to it.