Apollo BBS Archive - January 1992

Apollo BBS Archive - January 5, 1992

Mail from Pete Fischer
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 11:33:38

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

It has slakened in the last 48 hours. It has done that before,however- only
to re-invigorate itself with a vengence. I count no chickens..etc. etc...
I don't know what your schedule looks like, but you might consider joining
our Sunday afternoon at the Bobia. It's becoming a regular deal. Pete

Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
My schedule usually includes kids, kids and more kids.  But I
will take an hour or two off to make it to Metro.

Hope all is going well.    Rod

Public Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 81197
Author: James Matlock
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon/minorities
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 01:52:35

You said: "Minorities don't get persecuted just because they exist . . .
they get persecuted because the majority somehow perceives them as a
threat."
 
I'm not sure I buy that.  Minorities may be persecuted because the majority
perceives them as a threat, but they may also be persecuted for other
reasons:
 
Minorities may be persecuted because the majority sees some advantage
in persecuting them, if the majority also perceives that the minority is
weak (not capable of effectively defending themselves).  The "advantage" may
be commercial or emotional.  That is, they might either be able to make
money from it or make themselves feel better by belittling/abusing some
other "inferior" group (we can call this the "whipping boy syndrome" if you
like).
 
Sometimes this is done under the guise of seeing them as a threat.  People
instinctually know that they need to make up excuses for evil actions, no
matter how pathetic, since they know they are wrong.  That is, do they see
this minority as a genuine threat, or do they cook up a threat and attempt
to delude themselves and others, because their real motives are absolutely
inexcusible?
 

Message: 81198
Author: James Matlock
Category: Answer!
Subject: Peter/zapped msgs.
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 01:54:55

I don't see how I could post them again.  I suspect Rod may have them
buffered and you could view them the next time you visit.

Message: 81199
Author: James Matlock
Category: In search of
Subject: my biography
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 02:16:52

Assume that we we create a set of books of fixed length (say, 1000
pages each, with 40 lines of 80 characters per page), by assembling every
possible combination of (English) letters and punctuation marks.  Clearly,
most of these would be a meaningless jumble of letters.  However, because
the number of letters is fixed (26, plus the punctuation marks) and because
the number of characters in each book is fixed (80*40*1000), the total
number of books (each of which would be unique) would necessarily be finite.
So, in theory at least, assuming that one's biography could be properly
written in less than 1000 pages (seems reasonable), at least one of those
books would be my biography, since the books consist of every possible
combination of words (letters, actually) 1000 pages long, and one such
combination would undoubtably describe my life (accidently, of course, but
accurately).  
 
In fact, in such a library, there would be a biography of everyone on this
board, describing your life from birth to (and including the manner of)
death.  There would also be innumerable false biographies of each of us,
accurate in every detail except in one or two.  
 
This idea was taken from a reference to a story (which I haven't read) by
Jorge Luis Borges called "The Library of Babel," taken from his short story
collection "Labyrinths."

Message: 81200
Author: James Matlock
Category: Question?
Subject: Paul Savage
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 02:54:52

Can you tell me why a post card I received today had a Phoenix postmark
(Dec. 31) on the back and a Globe postmark (Jan. 2) on the front?
 
Incidentally, the postcard was from the Editorial Dept. of the AZ Republic,
verifying my letter.  They usually call you, but the postcard states that
the dept. was unable to contact me at the phone number I gave in the letter
(which is very odd...).  At any rate, they only verify letters they intend
to publish (probably protects them from lawsuits) so I guess it will be
appearing sometime next week.
 
I sort of wish I was able to edit it...the ending was a little weak, and
some messages I posted here after mailing it contained much more effective
phrases.  Oh well.  If they print the whole thing without mucking about with
it, I'll be happy.

Message: 81201
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: On the Lighter Side
Subject: Post cards, etc.
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 03:04:48

Early in December, a postal employee somewhere in the Midwest (I'm doing
this from memory) was called upon to service a machine that the Post Office
uses for cancelling stamps.  The machine is programmable to print various
messages on the envelops, such as HAPPY HOLIDAYS, SEASON'S GREETINGS,
REMEMBER THE ZIP CODE, etc.  The employee entered a test message that he had
been taught by his instructor.  Unfortunately, he forgot to reset the
machine before he put it back into service.  As a result, about 12,000
pieces of mail were delivered all over the U.S. in mid-December with the
message YOU BITCH imprinted over the stamp.

Message: 81202
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Religion
Subject: Religion & Govt.
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 03:06:14

The great failure of Communism is its tunnel vision, its singleminded focus
on material things and its total blindness to intangible human motivations.
Its creed concentrates on "equal distribution of wealth" to the complete
exclusion of the human need for self-determinism.  Precise equality of
wealth can only be achieved through concentrated power, which is
paradoxically at odds with the human demand for equal distribution of power.
In the spiritual sphere, Communism naively hoped to eliminate religious
conflict by suppressing religion itself.  In doing so, Communism deluded
only itself.  Perhaps it was not so naive; probably its leaders realized
that in eliminating all competitors, they were making their own creed the
only orthodoxy.  But how could they hope to neutralize religion by declaring
war on it?  When you label someone an enemy, his first instinct is to fight
back.  It isn't surprising that we find the church a persistent, though
underground, force in the Soviet Union, or that the Catholic Church in
Poland helped to unite the people against those they had come to see as
their oppressors.  Communism, like the Pilgrims, hoped it could win simply
by changing the rules of the game.  Instead, it ended up the loser.

The First Amendment of the American Constitution was a landmark in
innovative thought.  In an age of rationality, its authors were perceptive
enough to realize that rationality itself could be a religion, if it
excluded other beliefs that relied on faith rather than rationality alone.
They saw that the only way to avoid religious conflict was to keep
government out of religion, either for or against; to stop playing the game.

It has been said that one of the great strengths of the American
Constitution is its flexibility; it lends itself to interpretation according
to the prevailing mores.  So far as religion is concerned, this has proven
true up until now.  In the last century, when religious belief in America
was more homogeneous, children prayed in schools and nobody objected.
Perhaps this was unconstitutional, but when nobody was getting hurt there
was no reason to invoke the Constitution.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

In the last few decades we have seen more controversy, and some people -- a
minority, in fact -- have seen the need to invoke Constitutional protection
against having an unwanted religion foisted upon them.  This is all very
well; but as an article in *Time* magazine pointed out last month, many
people feel that we have gone too far.  These were some examples cited.

In November, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court threw out the sentence of a
murderer who killed a 70-year-old woman with an ax, on the ground that the
prosecutor had unlawfully cited biblical law to the jury in his summation
urging the death penalty.

In Decatur, Illinois, a primary-school teacher discovered the word God in a
phonics textbook and ordered her class of seven-year-olds to strike it out,
saying that it is against the law to mention God in a public school.

The town of Oak Park, Illinois, blocked a private Catholic hospital from
erecting a cross on its own smokestack because, councilors say, some local
residents would be offended.

In 1976, courts argued the case of a fourth-grade girl in California whose
teacher said she could not wear a cross on her necklace.

In Rhode Island, a rabbi at a middle-school graduation gave thanks to God
for "the legacy of America, where diversity is celebrated and the rights of
minorities are protected".  The rabbi's prayer was ruled "unconstitutional"
by a district court for its mention of God.

In 1991, a federal judge ruled that school administrators in Wauconda,
Illinois [again!] could stop a junior high school student, Megan Hedges,
from distributing copies of an evangelical Christian newspaper, *Issues and
Answers*.  The newspaper has published articles with headlines like
"Satanism Bred in Secular School System".

And of course, there have been fights over groups wanting to conduct
extracurricular religious activities on school and college campuses.

Instinctively, many people feel that these incidents are ridiculous.  A
feeling is growing that legal and government activity over religion in
public life is not just neutral to religion, but actively hostile to it.

I would say they are right.

First of all, it should be pointed out that we bring many of these disputes
upon ourselves when we allow government to intrude on more and more areas of
life.

When people do things for themselves, each individual, or each group, does
it the way they want to.  When we ask government to do it for us, there is
bound to be a dispute, not only about *whether* government should be doing
it in the first place, but *how* government should be doing it so as not to
offend any of the parties involved.  So when public education is controlled
by government, there is bound to be a lot of argument about what should be
taught, and how.  I'm not going to argue against public education here,
because in the balance it has to be admitted that there are a great many
children who would never get an education any other way.  But we do waste a
great deal of energy resolving such disputes, and the overall result has to
be a dumbing down of public education so as not to offend anybody, whether
it's with religion, sex, evolution, ethnocentric teaching, or anything else.

The main point with these disputes is that most of them could be quickly and
simply resolved just by referring to the First Amendment.  What does it say?

     Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
     prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

The Constitution may indeed be "flexible".  But often it helps just to look
at the words and see what they literally say.

I can buy the fact that an official policy of endorsing a particular
religious creed in a school, by hymns and prayers and ceremonies and
teaching, makes children feel that they *have* to join in.  This is not a
"law establishing religion", but with the authority of teachers behind it,
funded and directed by government, it is certainly coercive.  It makes a
reasonable argument for banning religious practices in schools.

However, the need for such a ban is not an explicit requirement of the
Constitution.  It is an interpretation of the Constitution, based on the
idea that the authority of teachers over children has very much the same
force as a law.  Since this is an interpretation, it should surely have some
leeway for a rabbi who was expressing his personal feelings toward God --
not forcing children to pray to that God -- in a graduation speech.

The case of the rabbi is the most borderline of all.  Let's look at
extracurricular religious activities on campus.  The government is funding
buildings and heating and light and other facilities where students can
gather to engage in various activities.  If they gather to read their Bible
or Koran, is the government supplying funds to "support religion"?

In a 1947 Supreme Court decision, Justice Hugo Black, himself a Baptist,
wrote that neither federal nor state governments "can pass laws which aid
one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another".  He
was certainly right in his first and third statements.  It's his middle
statement that was flawed.  The government must not, for example, "aid all
religions" over agnosticism or atheism; but there is a perfectly reasonable
alternative: for the government to simply stand aside.

If a teacher *leads* students in religious practice as part of his job, that
certainly qualifies as using government funds to promote religion.  However,
when students themselves voluntarily use campus facilities for religious
practices, the government takes no part in "aiding" religion.  It may be
providing the facilities, but how they are used by the students is a matter
of individual choice.  A good parallel would be the fact that government
pays to build roads.  People who choose to demonstrate in favor of something
on those roads are using those government-funded facilities to aid their
cause, but their actions are constitutional.  If government attempts to
suppress religious (or any other legal) activities on campus, it is
arrogating to itself the right to control what people do there in defiance
of the Constitution.  In particular, the wearing of a necklace and the
distribution of a newspaper are exercises of the right of free speech.

So is the displaying of a cross on one's own smokestack.  It is no different
from displaying a company logo on the front of a building.

The company logo, like the cross, announces one's affiliation with a
particular group.  The government seems to feel that affiliation with a
large and powerful group might be frightening to somebody who belongs to a
smaller group.  That may be true to a few minorities (and I'm personally
offended to see a very few large companies swallowing up a vast number of
smaller ones), but it is not illegal to advertise one's affiliation with a
group.  Such expressions are Constitutionally protected.

The argument that some people might be "offended" by the cross on the
smokestack -- or the cross on a necklace -- or the mere mention of God in a
phonics textbook -- has no legal force whatsoever.  The Constitution grants
the right to free speech.  It does not grant a right of protection from
being "offended" by the free speech that other people might utter.  To those
hypersensitive people who whine at the tiniest thing that offends them, the
silence of the Constitution has only one message: "Go and boil your head".

Lastly, there was the matter of the prosecuting attorney who cited Biblical
law.  Was he unconstitutionally bringing religious issues to bear on the
execution of justice?  I don't think so.  If he had some actual authority
over the jury, that would be one thing.  But he didn't.  It was his job to
persuade the jury to do what he wanted.  In this context, emotional
arguments are fair game.  Those members of the jury who were religious would
respond to the argument.  Those who thought differently would not.  Nobody
was forcing them to be religious.

Suppose the murder victim were a child, and he had appealed to the feelings
of the jury as parents?  Would that have been ruled "unconstitutional"?  It
might be argued on appeal that the jury was "biased" in passing a death
sentence on a child murderer because they all happened to be parents.  But
it is unreasonable to single out a particular kind of bias -- a religious
one -- as worse than other kinds of bias.

When the government tries to protect people from being "offended" by
religion, one can only suppose either that it is hostile to religion, or
that it is indulging in a little of what it euphemistically calls
"affirmative action" to smooth down the ruffled feathers of those who
persist in playing the part of victims.  Nothing in the Constitution calls
for the government to redress the inequality of numbers among different
religious groups, or to support religion against the lack of it -- or the
other way around.  The Constitution calls for government to leave the issue
severely alone -- which means, in the main, leaving people the power to make
their own decisions about it.  A government that appears hostile to religion
is just as bad as one that insists on adherence to one orthodox creed.  And
it's acting just as stupidly as those Communists did, because hostility to
what the people want will never solve any problems.  It will only exacerbate
them.

Message: 81210
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Beau/Pulliam
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 05:55:19

It was also possible, and factual, that the Pulliam press had (and still
has) a stranglehold on advertisers, supplies and anything else associated
with the newspaper industry.

Message: 81211
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Answer!
Subject: Matlock's post card
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 06:02:36

 The postmarks indicate that the card was mailed in Phoenix, and somehow got
sent to GLobe in error. Globe PO then postmarked it and returned it to
Phoenix. These things happen more than the PO would like to admit,
especially with postcards, that can easily be hidden behind another
envelope, two can be stuck together at the source (R&G in this case), they
can sneak into an unsealed envelope, etc.
 At least you got it, which is some sort of accomplishment, I guess.

Message: 81212
Author: James Matlock
Category: My Dinner with...
Subject: apoplexy
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 06:42:52

I just realized something really creepy.  If we use an English alphabet of
26 letters along with some punctuation and numerals...let's just make our
type set an even 100 characters (any *really* special notation (like 
integral signs and so forth) will just have to be spelled out), and as 
before, make our books 1000 pages each, with 40 lines of 80 characters 
per line, then the total possible number of unique 1000 page books is 
100^(80*40*1000) = 100^(3,200,000),  which is a stupendously huge number.
(To see that this is correct, remember that each character position can hold
one of 100 characters and that each book contains (80*40*1000 character 
positions; the caret mark is an exponentiation sign.)
 
Now, just for the sake of argument, assume that during the life of the
universe, more than 100^(3,200,000) people are born and die.  It seems that
anyone ought to be able to have a decent biography written about them in
1000 pages or less, but clearly, every single possible combination of 
letters in all possible 1000 page books of the kind we're considering,
will already have been used!  In fact, long before that many people are
born and die, since most of those books will consist of nonsensical strings
of characters such as "ajjhsdhnndsa..." and others will consist of Hamlet,
the instructions to your VCR, and in fact, every other book which has ever
been published.  How can this be?!!!

The only answer I can come up with is that once that many people have 
existed, it will actually take more than 1000 pages just to differentiate 
between any two of them!!  You might think that two people ought very easily
to be differentiable based solely on their time and date of birth -- that
no two people have exactly the same time and date of birth according to some
standard system of reckoning (well, perhaps, but certainly not in the same 
exact place as well), which is true.  The time, assuming it is a cyclic 
value (like our 24 hour system) is irrelevant, since it repeats many times.
The place name would never grow beyond a hundred characters, even if you
lived in Wales.  That leaves a large but quite limited number of place
names.  The real variation in all of the "birth stamps" of these people
would involve the date itself, but really only the year, since the days
and months are cyclic.  So consider how long the year label would have to
grow in order to uniquely identify (in conjunction with the other data) some
of the later existing individuals.  We might shorten the year label by
introducing "periods" and making the years themselves cyclic (such as "the
year 1992 in the First Period), but eventually we would be faced with the
choice of letting either the Period names or the year labels grow 
unmanageably long.  Of course, we could add something called an "Era" label
as well, and make the Periods cyclic too, but all of this still adds to the
length of the total "birth stamp."  Eventually, no matter what strategy
we decided to use, the latter day people would require more than 1000
such pages just to uniquely identify their birth date.  (Can this be
right?  Am I just wacked out?  What's going on?!!)

Nor would it do any good to propose (purely for the sake of argument)
that these people (or beings) are all born at nearly the same time, but
in different places (across the wide, perhaps infinite universe).  Because
then the unique identifier would be the place name, and there would have to
be so many that there wouldn't be enough characters in the 1000 pages to
uniquely identify them all (that is, some names would have to be longer than
1000 pages!).  I can't formally prove these arguments about the birth stamp
lengths: I offer them because I don't see any other solution.
 
Nor would it do any good to consider what different people did during their
lives.  Every single possible sequence of events that could be described
using our 100 character type set in books of 1000 pages (40 lines of 80
characters per page) would be described in one of those 100^(3,200,000)
books.  The only resolution that I can see is that it would require more or
bigger pages to uniquely identify everyone in their biography.  What would 
this do to culture?!!
 
Who needs LSD with this kind of stuff to contemplate?  Am I gibbering?
Can this be correct?  There may be some simple answer I've overlooked.
If you can make me look like a bonehead (or at least, fatigued and boggled)
by all means, go right ahead!

Message: 81215
Author: James Matlock
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon/last batch
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 07:07:48

Very well thought out.  Most felicitous.  I read every word.  I agree.  What
more can I say?

Message: 81216
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Politics
Subject: Gordon's Minorities
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 08:42:52

> Rather than correlating the attitude of majorities to just the
> one factor of their strength, I'd say that whether the majority
> gets vicious or not depends on how much motivation they have
> for getting vicious, as well as on how vicious they can afford
> to get with impunity.
 
Well, I suppose with those qualifications I have to agree with you, although
I still question your belief that minorities aren't persecuted simply
because they *are* minorities.  I'd also suggest that the threat the
majority feels need not be a real threat, but merely a perceived threat.
 
> Depending on what it is they're asking, and how much the lack
> of it means to them, yes, I am saying that.
 
Again, given your added explanation and examples, I have to agree.  
 
Drat!

Message: 81217
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Politics
Subject: Gordon-God in Court
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 08:43:19

> Lastly, there was the matter of the prosecuting attorney who
> cited Biblical law.  Was he unconstitutionally bringing
> religious issues to bear on the execution of justice?  I don't
> think so.
 
You'll have to present more that just the headline capsules of this case to
convince me.  
 
If the jury were expected, as most juries are, to make their determination
on the basis of the facts, and the prosecutor's main point was the biblical
one, then the appeals court may have been right in overturning.  That is, if
the prosecutor so inflamed the jury with rhetoric that they disregarded the
evidence, the conviction may have been unjust.
 
Do you have any more facts to give us on this case?
 
Other than this quibble, congratulations on another outstanding series of
posts, Gordon.

Message: 81219
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon's 16
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 15:16:17

I for the most part agree with your treatise on religion in America, but I
have disagreements in two areas.  First, the one already addressed by Mr.
Burkett ignores an important point -- the prosecuting attorney is a
government functionary, and is representing the government.  It *is not* the
government's position that Biblical law means this or that, or has any
relevance to court decisions.  The same could be said if the judge's
instructions included a reference to Biblical law.  Our law descends
(mostly) from English Common Law (and Equity Law, right, Mr. Archimedes?)
 
The second is about "extracurricular" religious activities in public
schools.  In the case I paid attention to a few years ago (in Oklahoma?),
the position of the school was that, since school policy required a
*sponsor* for any student organization, and that they didn't let students
meet after school without being part of a student organization, the fact
that some teacher was *sponsoring* a religious (even Bible study is
religious, you know) organization was problematic.

Message: 81220
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Fred/Competition
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 16:45:31

There are flaws in the idea that competition in a totally laissez-faire
market will automatically, and always, stimulate efficiency.  The real
problem, and the one with no clear-cut solution, is power.  Power is like
matter in the galaxy: it tends to clump.  If the logistics of an industry
are such that it can operate more efficiently when it gets bigger and more
centralized, the ultimate tendency is for larger segments of the industry to
swallow up the smaller ones until a monopoly is created.  Then bang goes
price competition, and with it, the motivation to efficiency.

Government can help with regulation to ensure a more level playing field --
if it wants to.  But government is itself a monopoly that accumulates power.
I make no distinction between government, business, or anything else; they
should all be viewed the same way.  All large powerful organizations,
"public" or private, are potential threats to individual freedom, except for
those that draw their support *and* their policies directly from members of
the public.  Even the latter type of organization can take on an ominous
life of its own if its policies are too tightly controlled by an oligarchy.
Labor unions are a notable case in point.  Since accumulations of power are
an unavoidable fact of life, the best we can hope for is to try to organize
a society where each one is constantly being played off against the others,
and no one organization gets too big.

It's interesting to see how large established organizations resist any
attempt to redistribute power and freedom to the individual.  *Time*
magazine this week noted that in this time of increasing unemployment, the
states of Washington and Massachusetts have both started schemes to help
unemployed people start their own businesses.

Washington gives the option of paying six months of unemployment benefits as
a lump sum, to provide capital for starting a small business.  Massachusetts
offers ten weeks of small-business instruction and sponsors loans from
Shawmut Bank.  Admittedly this puts the borrower in thrall to the bank; but
that's a different issue.

A number of such small businesses fail.  It was emphasized that nearly one
in five folded within a year.  However, this means that over 80% of them
were still succeeding after a year, so more than 80% of the owners were
making their own living instead of going on welfare, for example.

A spokesman for UBA Inc., described as a "pro-business" lobby, complained
that the Washington program was "unfair to employers" because the money they
paid into the unemployment insurance pool was used to finance potential
competitors.  This reaction is entirely predictable.  But I should point out
that this organization's description is clearly misleading.  It is not there
to stimulate the health of "business" in any general sense.  It is there to
defend the interests of specific, established, and usually large businesses.

The president of the AFL-CIO's Washington State Labor Council also grumbled
about the program.  "You can't start a serious business with an unemployment
check," he said.  "If you do, you're talking about a bunch of poorly
capitalized businesses that hardly stand a chance of surviving."  This man
seemed to be complaining that the program is unfair to its participants!

He must have overlooked the fact that nobody pointed a gun at those people's
heads and *forced* them to participate in the program.  They were given a
chance, an opportunity to make a choice that they would not otherwise have
had.  OK, so it's a risky one.  But it's a lot better than no choice at all.

Once upon a time, a naive person might have seen a labor union as a group
formed to defend the interest of the common man -- an interest that needed
defending because so many "common men" are wage slaves.  What better way to
solve the problem permanently than to make every man self-employed?  But of
course, a self-employed person has no need of labor unions.  If he has one
or two employees himself, they won't usually be in a union either.  This
program will do nothing to enhance the power of the AFL-CIO, whose reaction
is also utterly predictable.  But the AFL-CIO, unlike UBA Inc., couldn't
find a serious moral argument against it, so they covered up with bluster.

I can well believe that Pulliam might have pulled some strings to hamper its
competition from getting supplies of paper and ink.  But I'm puzzled about
how they could possibly "intimidate" their advertisers.

Since Pulliam itself is dependent upon those same advertisers, I don't see
what an advertiser has to lose by placing business with the competition.
Once Pulliam's advertising market started to weaken, surely the company
would be anxious to retain or entice back that advertiser, rather than (for
example) raising rates or refusing to run ads.

It would only work if Pulliam managed to convince each *individual*
advertiser that if he took his business elsewhere, nobody else would; and
the rival publication would founder anyway, leaving that advertiser high and
dry because Pulliam would cancel whatever advantageous deal the advertiser
had previously negotiated.  This is very instructive, because it goes to
show how power is maintained by means of hierarchical lines of communication
in which Pulliam talks individually to its advertisers, but they don't talk
to each other.  Clearly the advertisers' comeback is to get together, share
the information, and say "all right, if Pulliam is gonna play that game,
then a whole bunch of us will take our business to the competition.  Pulliam
can't fight all of us at once."  It wouldn't even have to be all of them;
just a substantial enough bloc to make a dent in Pulliam's business.  I
don't know why they didn't do this.  But it also goes to show that the only
way to fight an accumulation of power is to form another accumulation of
power to resist it, which is why power tends to clump.

Message: 81224
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: James/minorities
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 16:50:14

I just read your post, and I agree that majorities will also often take
advantage of a minority simply because it *is* a minority and can't fight
back.  I touched on this slightly in #81188.

It's worth noting, though, that the results of this effect will correlate
with the size of the minority in the same way that the "threat" aspect does.
A smaller minority poses less of a threat, and so is less likely to provoke
fear and repression from the majority.  But if the minority is being
exploited for gain, then the smaller it is, the less the majority has to
gain from exploiting it.

It would be interesting to study the many instances of discrimination,
exploitation, and persecution in history, and to plot a curve of the
incidence of exploitation against the size of the minority.  I'd expect to
find a humpbacked curve, where very tiny minorities didn't usually suffer
much discrimination because they weren't worth the trouble to discriminate
against.  Then the curve would rise, but obviously it would have to drop off
again before the 50% point was reached.  In general, if a population is
evenly divided between two different groups, then either they have to learn
to live together, or else the resulting strife will tear the community apart
-- which isn't to anybody's advantage.

But we all know that this kind of strife *has* happened at times, notably in
Lebanon.

This points up the fact that any faction involved must believe that it can
win an advantage by pursuing a particular course of aggression.  In Lebanon
the Christian and Moslem factions were evenly enough divided for both sides
to believe they had a chance of absolute power by winning the conflict; and
also that if the other side won, they would be liquidated.  A minority can
also hope to win concessions from a majority by acts of terrorism.  It can
be advantageous to make concessions if you believe the minority will then
shut up.  In Northern Ireland, the Catholic minority also believes it has a
chance of ultimate victory with the rest of Catholic Ireland at its back.
In addition, the Catholic population in Northern Ireland is increasing
faster than the Protestants.  (This isn't a snide joke.  It's true.)

One has to ask how oppression of a minority gets started in the first place.
My personal belief is that human society would run more efficiently overall
if nobody had to waste time and effort guarding against the fear that the
opposition will gain the upper hand.  (I'm not talking here about the
productive effects of competition, but the nonproductive ones, the abstract
equivalent of wasting money on locks and armed guards and espionage and
theft insurance.)  If two-thirds of the human race could exploit the labor
of the other third and be guaranteed that that situation will continue
without any side-effects disadvantageous to them, I suppose they would do
it.  Fortunately, any attempt at exploiting others carries with it the risk
of provoking destructive conflict.

Furthermore, most humans have at least a vague realization (many see it very
sharply) that if everybody plays hardball, somebody is going to get hurt,
and it only takes a change in the rules to make them personally the losers
instead of the winners.  The only effective answer is to stop playing the
game and pursue instead an ethic that we call "fairness", or "justice",
where we agree to take positions that protect people from disastrously
losing.  It's really a kind of insurance.

Insurance is the choice of the forward-looking man.  Most people know that
piece written by someone-or-other in Nazi Germany that starts "When they
came for the Catholics, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic..."
Most people *should* know it, because Ann Landers is fond enough of
reiterating it ad nauseam.  It's one of the more sensible things she likes
to say.  It's a very forward-thinking piece.  But then, human beings are not
universally famous for their forward thinking.

I mentioned that there isn't any noticeable discrimination against Irish
Catholics in Great Britain...  or against Welshmen...  or against people
with red hair.  Why don't we all get up and make slaves out of people with
red hair?  Well, for a start it's very arbitrary.  If we make slaves out of
people with red hair, why not blonds tomorrow?  Secondly, who's to say what
exactly constitutes "red hair"?  Does blond-with-a-ginger-streak count?  How
about reddish brown?  If we're going to pick on a minority to exploit, that
minority has to be clearly distinguishable by some fixed discrete attribute.

That's where rigid adherence to religious creeds is a disadvantage.  So is
being black.  You can't change being black, and it's very visible.  You can
however be half black, or a quarter black; and then the lines start to blur.
I think that in centuries to come the conflict between white and black will
be a matter of ancient history.  But I also think the only thing that will
effectively kill it will be a substantial amount of intermarriage -- enough
so that a fair proportion of the human race is some shade of battleship
gray.

Thanks for your comments.  I still have to catch up on the later ones from
everybody that were posted today.

Message: 81228
Author: $ Fred Smith
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 17:37:12

RE: Gvt and Religion
It's all well and good to posit the idea that gvt has come
down too hard on "voluntary" prayer and the Rabbi's mention
of God in a commencment address but consider the
alternative.  If the gvt is going to be neutral about it
then they will have to also insure balance if such is
requested and that means that in some years the commencment
address would be given by a Nazi or an Atheist or a
Satanist, etc.  While you appear willing to accept the
notion that children aren't going to be hurt by hearing
someone say "Praise to God, our heavenly protector" will you
be equally calm when they are told "Praise yourselves, dear
children, there is no God, sample the world, it's all there
will be for you." when Madeline O'Hair is the speaker at
your local high school??  If parents want god in their
schools they should send them to a parochial school.

Message: 81229
Author: $ Fred Smith
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 17:37:45

As far as car salesman are concerned I can only go on the
basis of my experiance.  It's not that they are ALL bad,
it's just that considering how relatively few dealings I
have had to have with them that the percentage of times they
have tried to screw me, compared to other businesses, is so
high that I don't trust any of them at all.  And that's not
just a recent observation, it goes back many years.
  If you look at a "low mileage" car and ask why is the
price so high since it clearly has just been painted, has
new tires when the original eqiuppment couldn't possibly
have worn out, etc, and you always get the same "Really!!
Gosh, I don't know! Are you sure it was repainted?? " As
they feign stupidity.  And the classic of saying it's fully
guarantted when the fine print says it isn't (they can't do
that anymore, there is a new law that prevents it, when they
follow the law), that it's strickly as is.

  The classic, for me, was the guy I taked to first about a
specific car on the lot and he said "Oh yeah, it's really
nice, I drove it home yesterday, runs beautifly!".  I
happened to go to that same lot 3 years latter and saw an
old pickup (I was looking for a real cheapy) that I thought
might be in my price range.  The truck was along the back
fence and had cobwebs on the tires; it obviously hadn't
moved in weeks.  A salesman came out and started talking to
me.  I told him what I was looking for and pointed to the
truck.   "Oh yeah", he said, "That runs beautifily, I just
drove it home yesterday!"  The light went on in my head!!!
Here was a first class crook who would say ANYTHING, no
matter how ludicrous and untrue!  I was young then and just
left.  If it happened today I'd probably let him dig a real
big hole for himself before shoving him in and then leaving.

RE; illegal to own gold, gvt cheating us
     Depends on your point of view.  If the gvt had not done
that there would be no way they could institute an even
handed tax system since human nature being what it is, those
people bartering with gold would not likely pay the tax that
they were supposed to.  It still boils down to a question of
your trust (or at least grudging acceptance) of gvt
requirements.
 

Public Bulletin Board command:EC

You chose Chit Chat

Subject:Fred/precious metal

Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
 1:That's is how the government took us over.  They made it illegal to own 
 2:coinage that had real value.  From that day we have been real economic 
 3:slaves. 
 4:end

Edit command:S

Saving message...
The message is 81232