### 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.