----- Original Message -----
From: "Frostbit" <frostbit@...>
To: <sentient@egroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2000 6:55 PM
Subject: Re: [sentient] What Happened?


All right, I'll start a quick one. What, does the list feel is the
market value of ethical busness, in this, or any other society. When Kaz
rants about the free market replacing intellectual property law, the
argument he makes is that people will naturally tend to buy - say a book
- from it's author rather than someone who has reprinted the book,
without the author's permission. This seems like a week argument to me,
and I'm wondering what the list thinks.

    You know, it seems like the only time I speak up on this list, it's in
agreement with Kaz. People are going to start talking! <grin>
    Be that as it may, I do believe that people will find it in their best
interests to buy from companies that practice ethics that are in line with
their own, in a free market. People do it now, to a lesser degree, when they
boycott a product for whatever reason. unfortunately, people in this country
rely far to heavily on the government to stick their nose into commerce and
dictate the morality of corporations based on the principle of "majority
rules". I, personally, do not like this method as I am far too infrequently
a member of the majority to benefit from this at all. If businesses were
allowed to decide their own codes of ethics, I could choose to pay my hard
earned money only to companies that had *my* (or people like me) best
interests in mind. They'd be banking on the chance that there are enough
people of similar mind to mine to keep them in business. With the interenet
becoming the new universal marketplace, I think that there would be plenty
of people to keep companies in business. Those that catered to no one's
needs would simply fail. This is where the market value of ethical business
comes in. It is a standard comment in consumer industries that "the customer
is always right." That attitude generally keeps companies in business, those
that lack this attitude, either have no competition or they fail quickly.
    As for intellectual property... people would swiftly learn that if they
enjoyed an author or artist's work then they had better make sure their
money gets to that person so that they can continue to have access to that
work.  In a free market, there would be a direct demand for popular artists.
Pirated work would never make it to the market fast enough to prevent an
artist from making money. Being an artist myself, I have mixed feelings
about this. I have had my work stolen, and it is a horrible feeling. But, as
with the attitude that one must give liberty even to those who's ethics one
despises in order to truly insure one's own liberty, I feel that it would be
ideal to have a competitive market for art so that I would not be stifled
artistically, myself.

Just a thought,

Julie

I'll stir the pot.

I recently noticed that the Supreme Court agreed to take U.S. versus Dickerson.
From my perspective, this is a no-win, no-win for conservative or liberal.  A
little history is in order, I guess.

Everybody knows their rights under Miranda versus Ariz. in 1966. "you have a
right to remain silent.  Anything you say can and will be used against you in a
court of law.  You have the right to an attorney. Etc. Etc."

What most people don't know is that the Feds didn't like that law, so in 1968,
Congress passed a law, Section 3501, U.S. Criminal Code, essentially nullifying
Miranda in any federal jurisdiction. Good ol' DOJ came to our rescue though and
said that they weren't going to enforce it. Then a federal judge suppressed the
confession of a bank robber who had not been Mirandized;  in 1999, enter the 4th
Circuit of Appeals in VA. where the appellate panel reinstated the bank robbers
confession under 3501. The consensus of opinions that I have read indicate that
the Supremes will probably uphold 3501.

That will obviously kill Miranda, since if legal for Congress to kill Miranda in
fed jurisdictions, the states will kill Miranda in their jurisdictions like a
line of falling dominos.

I've never been for giving criminals more rights, but with the propensity for
the criminal justice system to rarely "get it right" I'm not sure where I stand.

I favor a technological approach that might be of some benefit, though it
probably can be thwarted.  I'd make it illegal to question a suspect except in
front of a television camera. Problem is, of course, there is no way to know
what kind of brain washing went on before the camera was turned on.  The Chinese
have been well know for that technique.

Short of throwing away the entire system and live in anarchy, where do we go?
What law is better? Law that protects us from criminals or law that protects us
all from police?

The NerdiFool



The NerdiFool

Retired Computer Nerd and Foolish Investor



> -----Original Message-----
>
> Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2000 2:29 PM
> To: sentient@egroups.com
> Subject: Re: [sentient] What Happened?
>
>
> On Sun, 14 May 2000, nerdifool wrote:
>
> > I haven't seen a single line from the Sentient since the
> Love Bug.  Did it get
> > wiped out and never re-established?
>
> ListBot murdered all the old threads with lag, and no new
> ones have really
> sprang up...or is that "sprung"
>
> --
> Words of the Sentient:
>
> When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both.
>                    -- James Dale Davidson, National Taxpayers Union
>
>
>                                --------------------
>
>            http://www.smart.net/~kaz/     mailto:kaz@...
>
>               AIM/Yahoo/irc/AOL Screen Name: KAZVorpal    ICQ# 1912557
>
>                                         --
>
>        This has been a  Sentient Moment,  brought to you by
> the makers of
>        /True Democracy/,  /The Words of the Sentient/,  and
> various other
>        Pompous Pontifications. All opinions are for
> entertainment purposes
>        only; we don't actually claim to predict the future,
> even though we
>        say we do repeatedly in our infomercial.  Any actions
> taken by the
>        proletariat based on the content of this  Sentient
> Moment  are the
>        sole responsibility of the  consumer,  and are not proposed or
>        endorsed by  UltraMegaLimitless  or the employees of
> KAZ Vorpal.
>        This is only a serving suggestion, this product does
> not actually
>        contain toast and orange juice, but IS a part of this balanced
>        breakfast. Use or rebroadcast without the expressed
> written consent
>        of ESPN is highly likely.
>
>             KAZ Vorpal:
>                         OverLord of the World's Most Verbose Tagline
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> Get paid for the stuff you know!
> Get answers for the stuff you don’t. And get $10 to spend on the site!
> http://click.egroups.com/1/2200/9/_/914540/_/958339712/
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> sentient-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>

All right, I'll start a quick one. What, does the list feel is the
market value of ethical busness, in this, or any other society. When Kaz
rants about the free market replacing intellectual property law, the
argument he makes is that people will naturally tend to buy - say a book
- from it's author rather than someone who has reprinted the book,
without the author's permission. This seems like a week argument to me,
and I'm wondering what the list thinks.

(there, I've done my bit for responsible list maintenance)

--
  -----------This Side First-----------|---------This Side Last---------
  Some say the world will end in fire  |    But if I had to perish twice
  Some say in ice                      |   I think I know enough of hate
  From what I've tasted of desire      | To say that for destruction ice
  I hold with those who favor fire     |                   Is also great
                                       |               And would suffice
  -------------------------------Robert Frost---------------------------

On Sun, 14 May 2000, nerdifool wrote:

> I haven't seen a single line from the Sentient since the Love Bug.  Did it get
> wiped out and never re-established?

ListBot murdered all the old threads with lag, and no new ones have really
sprang up...or is that "sprung"

--
Words of the Sentient:

When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both.
                    -- James Dale Davidson, National Taxpayers Union


                                --------------------

            http://www.smart.net/~kaz/     mailto:kaz@...

               AIM/Yahoo/irc/AOL Screen Name: KAZVorpal    ICQ# 1912557

                                         --

        This has been a  Sentient Moment,  brought to you by the makers of
        /True Democracy/,  /The Words of the Sentient/,  and various other
        Pompous Pontifications. All opinions are for entertainment purposes
        only; we don't actually claim to predict the future, even though we
        say we do repeatedly in our infomercial.  Any actions taken by the
        proletariat based on the content of this  Sentient Moment  are the
        sole responsibility of the  consumer,  and are not proposed or
        endorsed by  UltraMegaLimitless  or the employees of  KAZ Vorpal.
        This is only a serving suggestion, this product does not actually
        contain toast and orange juice, but IS a part of this balanced
        breakfast. Use or rebroadcast without the expressed written consent
        of ESPN is highly likely.

             KAZ Vorpal:
                         OverLord of the World's Most Verbose Tagline

I haven't seen a single line from the Sentient since the Love Bug.  Did it get
wiped out and never re-established?

The NerdiFool

Retired Computer Nerd and Foolish Investor

No, I agree and understand totally with what you're saying, but my point is,
if we're really withdrawing the protection of the law and interaction with
normal society from them, we shouldn't feel compelled to start building
hospitals, churches, and burrows for them either.

There also seems chance for a peculiur set of circumstances to bring about
the greatest advantage. Very few people are rehabilitated in prison. Perhaps
those successful people in the wilds of Earth(or wherever else we may be)
would be forced to overcome their shortsightedness and gain the same respect
for an individual's work, property, and liberty, not only because they would
feel the pinch in a quite real way, but it would also be the most effective
system. Perhaps then, even more than returning to society, they could find
better solutions than we the civilized who had previously expelled their
ancestors.

>I was just giving previously built prisons a new use as a place of exile.
>Exile would only have to have a barrier of some sort to keep exile-ees
>from returning to this country.  If we force them into exile as punishment
>then why would we care what rules they choose for themselves.  They may
>choose to live in anarchy.  Exile would be withdrawing the protection that
>our current laws give us in response to their own crimes.  I put in #3 to
>show that we would not be enforcing any more of our rules once a
>criminal is exiled.  Of course, if they choose to make rules, then they
>are responsible for enforcing their rules.
>
>I think exile is an interesting option.  In the case I am thinking of,
>where we provide nothing but the land, the criminals would be hard put to
>just get through surviving on a day to day basis.  If they are smart, then
>all their time will be spent growing and storing food and making clothes.
>If they do not have any intelligence, then they won't make it through the
>winter.  Hmm, of course their is always cannibalism.  :)

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

>
> I admit, there are some problems with the concept, not the least of which is
> finding the location. Obviously, nobody wants an exile-type prison anywhere
> near them and a big section of the country like in Coventry wouldn't fly
> either. It's something to ponder about at least, and at the very least the
> first two of your suggestions make sense. After all, since they violated
> another person's liberty in some manner, wouldn't it be kind of foolish to
> continue to pay to feed and clothe them? That's what I think anyway, and so
> it would be good for them to have to pull their own weight anyway. But if
> we're going to let them make their own rules, well what's the point of
> building something for them to live in?
>
> >On a more serious note, how would you create this exile?  Couldn't we call
> >exile, prison, and then take away the guards?
> >
> >We could modify the current rules under which Prisons operate to make them
> >into a true-er exile.
> >We can tell a new exile-ee to
> >1) grow your own food
> >2) weave your own fabrics
> >3) Make your own rules while in Exile

I was just giving previously built prisons a new use as a place of exile.
Exile would only have to have a barrier of some sort to keep exile-ees
from returning to this country.  If we force them into exile as punishment
then why would we care what rules they choose for themselves.  They may
choose to live in anarchy.  Exile would be withdrawing the protection that
our current laws give us in response to their own crimes.  I put in #3 to
show that we would not be enforcing any more of our rules once a
criminal is exiled.  Of course, if they choose to make rules, then they
are responsible for enforcing their rules.

I think exile is an interesting option.  In the case I am thinking of,
where we provide nothing but the land, the criminals would be hard put to
just get through surviving on a day to day basis.  If they are smart, then
all their time will be spent growing and storing food and making clothes.
If they do not have any intelligence, then they won't make it through the
winter.  Hmm, of course their is always cannibalism.  :)

Actually, it was more because he had a 'psychological disposition' of
thinking that he should have the right to force other people into doing
things his way, as I remember the judge saying to him how he even agreed
with him for punching the other dude. Still, I think you're right to an
extent, we should reserve something like exile for the more serious crimes
and the lesser crimes should be served by fines...or maybe floggings?

>I think we would end up with a country the size of Rhode Island and an
>exile the size of the rest of the U.S. :)  Considering that the man in
>Coventry was exiled for popping a guy in the nose because he said
>something rude.

I admit, there are some problems with the concept, not the least of which is
finding the location. Obviously, nobody wants an exile-type prison anywhere
near them and a big section of the country like in Coventry wouldn't fly
either. It's something to ponder about at least, and at the very least the
first two of your suggestions make sense. After all, since they violated
another person's liberty in some manner, wouldn't it be kind of foolish to
continue to pay to feed and clothe them? That's what I think anyway, and so
it would be good for them to have to pull their own weight anyway. But if
we're going to let them make their own rules, well what's the point of
building something for them to live in?

>On a more serious note, how would you create this exile?  Couldn't we call
>exile, prison, and then take away the guards?
>
>We could modify the current rules under which Prisons operate to make them
>into a true-er exile.
>We can tell a new exile-ee to
>1) grow your own food
>2) weave your own fabrics
>3) Make your own rules while in Exile

Mike

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

I think we would end up with a country the size of Rhode Island and an
exile the size of the rest of the U.S. :)  Considering that the man in
Coventry was exiled for popping a guy in the nose because he said
something rude.

On a more serious note, how would you create this exile?  Couldn't we call
exile, prison, and then take away the guards?

We could modify the current rules under which Prisons operate to make them
into a true-er exile.
We can tell a new exile-ee to
1) grow your own food
2) weave your own fabrics
3) Make your own rules while in Exile



On Tue, 2 May 2000, Mike DiBaggio wrote:

> Hi all. I think I'll jump in on this point by offering a proposal not often
> discussed; exile. To quote a line from Robert Heinlein's "Coventry",
>     "Even if one should willfully and knowingly damage another-as you have
> done-the state does not attempt to sit in moral judgement nor to punish. We
> have not the wisdom to do that, and the chain of injustices that have always
> followed such moralistic coercion endanger the liberty of all..." "...or of
> having the state withdraw itself from him-of sending him to coventry."
> The part I left out is about psychodynamic mind altering, which isn't really
> germane to this discussion since we don't have that kind of ability.
> Thoughts?
>
> Mike
>
> >I think that the whole question of deterrence is a waste of time anyway.
> >Deterrence assumes that external factors will affect a person's actions to
> >the extent that they will be drastically different.  Not killing someone
> >you
> >are about to kill is something drastically different to actually killing
> >them.  The truth is that if human beings don't even change under the strong
> >influence of sound, logical reason, they aren't going to change for
> >anything
> >else.
> >
> >The only action that society can take to protect itself from criminals is
> >to
> >get rid of them -- relative to society.  Remove them, lock em up, apply
> >whatever method, but just keep them away from other people.
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> eGroups eLerts
> It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
> http://click.egroups.com/1/3863/6/_/914540/_/957296576/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> sentient-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
>

Good article, KAZ!

It raises another "what if:" is it conceivably possible to conceal your
knowledge of this right, allow yourself to get selected for a jury, and THEN
inform your fellow jurors of the right, once the jury receives the case? 
Particularly if it were some kind of nebulous "sex crime" case that would
result in a seventeen year-old being branded "lifetime sex offender" or
other such balderdash...

Possible fodder for a John Grisham thriller?

Kaz, I'm amazed at you. The article you posted clearly states that the
problem was one of being calibrated only against genetic data on white
women.  The marketeers that sold it to the hospital should never have placed
it into the hospital until the calibration could be extended to the entire
population that needs it.  That data is readily available; there is no
excuse. It was likely rushed to market before calibration was complete to
satisfy the whim of some marketing commitment made with no knowledge of what
still needed to be done; typical situation.  Everybody involved in this
incident, the company that sold the machine, the hospital that took it to
the health fair before being calibrated, the minority lady that bitched
because she didn't understand that the machine would likely be calibrated
for minorities as rapidly as time and money could do so, the assemblyman
that banned it from the health fair, and the Associated Press that reported
it with obvious glee (remember - no bad news is no news at all) are all
guilty of making a situation born of stupidity into something worse. Now
your not reading carefully and making the situation into depriving the white
women for the sake of political correctness.  I guess the ultimate result
was in fact depriving white women who did not or could not go direct to
Belleview Women's, but there is no indication of intent on the part of these
idiots to deprive anyone, they simply wanted to keep their political ass out
of the fire. Not particularly noteworthy in the current environment. It is
also interesting that Associated Press found nothing positive to report
about a machine that could detect osteoporosis early enough to effect
outcomes.

The NerdiFool



-----Original Message-----
From: KAZ Vorpal [mailto:kaz@...]
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 8:29 AM
To: sentient@egroups.com
Subject: [sentient] OK, Now I'm Pissed Off - Banning Race-BAsed Medicine


Lemme quote the Associated Press, first:

> ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - A hospital removed the bone-density scanner it
> brought to a state Capitol health fair after protests from minorities
> upset that the machine, which screens for osteoporosis, was accurate on
> white women only.
>
> The machine was calibrated using genetic data on white women, prompting
> Bellevue Woman's Hospital to post ``White women only'' signs around its
> booth at the fair Monday.
>
> ``I don't understand why you would bring a machine for white women only
> to a public place where there are multiple races. That's very
> insulting,'' said Rita Matthews, a state worker who is black. ``It's
> like we're back in the '40s and '50s.''
>
> Ruth Fidler, who was conducting the tests, said she could not verify the
> accuracy of the test on non-white women. She agreed to pack up her
> machine and leave after state Assemblyman Keith Wright, chairman of the
> Black, Puerto Rican and Hispanic Legislative Caucus, told her it
> shouldn't be used on public property.
>

Because /science/ says this machine only works accurately on white women,
this racist asshole assemblyman is going to deprive those women whom the
osteoperosis screening DOES help.

This world is full of idiots.

Maybe we can move the list to another planet.

I say we ban screening for sickle-cell anemia.

--

Words of the Sentient:

It is of the essence of the demand for equality before the law that people
should be treated alike in spite of the fact that they are different.
                                           --Friedrich Hayek

                                --------------------

            http://www.smart.net/~kaz/     mailto:kaz@...

               AIM/Yahoo/irc/AOL Screen Name: KAZVorpal    ICQ# 1912557

                                         --

        This has been a  Sentient Moment,  brought to you by the makers of
        /True Democracy/,  /The Words of the Sentient/,  and various other
        Pompous Pontifications. All opinions are for entertainment purposes
        only; we don't actually claim to predict the future, even though we
        say we do repeatedly in our infomercial.  Any actions taken by the
        proletariat based on the content of this  Sentient Moment  are the
        sole responsibility of the  consumer,  and are not proposed or
        endorsed by  UltraMegaLimitless  or the employees of  KAZ Vorpal.
        This is only a serving suggestion, this product does not actually
        contain toast and orange juice, but IS a part of this balanced
        breakfast. Use or rebroadcast without the expressed written consent
        of ESPN is highly likely.

             KAZ Vorpal:
                         OverLord of the World's Most Verbose Tagline


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get paid for the stuff you know!
Get answers for the stuff you don’t. And get $10 to spend on the site!
http://click.egroups.com/1/2200/6/_/914540/_/957281341/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
sentient-unsubscribe@egroups.com

It'd be really nice if people who knew about it kept it to themselves, got
on the jury, and gummed up the whole works from the inside...eventually, it
would spread until a corrupt law couldn't be convicted anywhere since by
sheer probability there has to be someone among the 12(or 14 or 15
alternate) that disagrees with the law. When this happens, it likely
wouldn't even be enforced.

OTOH, what happens if such a situation happened where some deviant critters
started manipulating the law to take our rights away, in just such a manner?

Mike

>This is the first one I've really liked, for a very long time. And,
>ironically, I was half asleep while writing it. Apparently mental
>impairment inspires me.
>
>
>                          How to Get Out of Jury Duty
>
>           ...and be a hero for it, instead of a "bad citizen"!

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

Hi all. I think I'll jump in on this point by offering a proposal not often
discussed; exile. To quote a line from Robert Heinlein's "Coventry",
     "Even if one should willfully and knowingly damage another-as you have
done-the state does not attempt to sit in moral judgement nor to punish. We
have not the wisdom to do that, and the chain of injustices that have always
followed such moralistic coercion endanger the liberty of all..." "...or of
having the state withdraw itself from him-of sending him to coventry."
The part I left out is about psychodynamic mind altering, which isn't really
germane to this discussion since we don't have that kind of ability.
Thoughts?

Mike

>I think that the whole question of deterrence is a waste of time anyway.
>Deterrence assumes that external factors will affect a person's actions to
>the extent that they will be drastically different.  Not killing someone
>you
>are about to kill is something drastically different to actually killing
>them.  The truth is that if human beings don't even change under the strong
>influence of sound, logical reason, they aren't going to change for
>anything
>else.
>
>The only action that society can take to protect itself from criminals is
>to
>get rid of them -- relative to society.  Remove them, lock em up, apply
>whatever method, but just keep them away from other people.

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

--- KAZ Vorpal <kaz@...> wrote:
> Lemme quote the Associated Press, first:
>
> > ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - A hospital removed the
> bone-density scanner it
> > brought to a state Capitol health fair after
> protests from minorities
> > upset that the machine, which screens for
> osteoporosis, was accurate on
> > white women only.
> >
> > The machine was calibrated using genetic data on
> white women(snip)

Heh. I find it interesting that AP didn't bother to
mention in their article that osteoporosis afflicts
mainly white and Asian women.  Which is probably the
explanation for why the machine was calibrated using
data from whites.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/

On Tue, 2 May 2000, Peter Vinton, Jr. wrote:

> It raises another "what if:" is it conceivably possible to conceal your
> knowledge of this right, allow yourself to get selected for a jury, and THEN
> inform your fellow jurors of the right, once the jury receives the case?
> Particularly if it were some kind of nebulous "sex crime" case that would
> result in a seventeen year-old being branded "lifetime sex offender" or
> other such balderdash...

Yes, naturally my true intent is to spread the word about jury powers, not
to help people get out of duty, per se. In a free market, one must
actually provide benefit even to get people to buy pontification.

Heh.

--
Words of the Sentient:

Mahomet made the people believe that he would call a hill to him, and
from the top of it offer up his prayers for the observers of his law.
The people assembled. Mahomet called the hill to come to him, again and
again; and when the hill stood still he was never a whit abashed, but
said, "If the hill will not come to Mahomet, Mahomet will go to the hill."
                                                -- Francis Bacon

                                --------------------

            http://www.smart.net/~kaz/     mailto:kaz@...

               AIM/Yahoo/irc/AOL Screen Name: KAZVorpal    ICQ# 1912557

                                         --

        This has been a  Sentient Moment,  brought to you by the makers of
        /True Democracy/,  /The Words of the Sentient/,  and various other
        Pompous Pontifications. All opinions are for entertainment purposes
        only; we don't actually claim to predict the future, even though we
        say we do repeatedly in our infomercial.  Any actions taken by the
        proletariat based on the content of this  Sentient Moment  are the
        sole responsibility of the  consumer,  and are not proposed or
        endorsed by  UltraMegaLimitless  or the employees of  KAZ Vorpal.
        This is only a serving suggestion, this product does not actually
        contain toast and orange juice, but IS a part of this balanced
        breakfast. Use or rebroadcast without the expressed written consent
        of ESPN is highly likely.

             KAZ Vorpal:
                         OverLord of the World's Most Verbose Tagline

Good article, KAZ!

It raises another "what if:" is it conceivably possible to conceal your
knowledge of this right, allow yourself to get selected for a jury, and THEN
inform your fellow jurors of the right, once the jury receives the case?
Particularly if it were some kind of nebulous "sex crime" case that would
result in a seventeen year-old being branded "lifetime sex offender" or
other such balderdash...

Possible fodder for a John Grisham thriller?

--Peter

   "Creativity is the ultimate natural resource."
      The Pendragon Dream Factory
      A subsidiary of Pentide, Inc.

      Visit our WORLDS OF FANTASY galleries at
      http://Welcome.to/PendragonDreamFactory

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

On Tue, 2 May 2000, nerdifool wrote:

> I wonder if anyone thought about calibrating the machine properly before
> placing it on display before the politically correct race based audience.
> While the legislator was obviously an asshole, I suggest that the marketing
> folks at the company that was trying to sell the machine before properly
> calibrating it should be canned on the spot. Maybe those minority folk that
> were so pissed would feel a little better, and the investors backing that
> machine might also.

I'm not certain that it's a matter of calibration. My impression was that
it simply doesn't work right with black women, for what are otherwise
superficial physical reasons.

The consequences of a race-based society, in this case, seem to be the
deprivation of health care to those women who /could/ get it. Even if we
accept that, eventually, it would be possible for this to work regardless
of race, why should those for whom it already works have to go
undiagnosed?

--
Words of the Sentient:

It is of the essence of the demand for equality before the law that people
should be treated alike in spite of the fact that they are different.
                                           --Friedrich Hayek

                                --------------------

            http://www.smart.net/~kaz/     mailto:kaz@...

               AIM/Yahoo/irc/AOL Screen Name: KAZVorpal    ICQ# 1912557

                                         --

        This has been a  Sentient Moment,  brought to you by the makers of
        /True Democracy/,  /The Words of the Sentient/,  and various other
        Pompous Pontifications. All opinions are for entertainment purposes
        only; we don't actually claim to predict the future, even though we
        say we do repeatedly in our infomercial.  Any actions taken by the
        proletariat based on the content of this  Sentient Moment  are the
        sole responsibility of the  consumer,  and are not proposed or
        endorsed by  UltraMegaLimitless  or the employees of  KAZ Vorpal.
        This is only a serving suggestion, this product does not actually
        contain toast and orange juice, but IS a part of this balanced
        breakfast. Use or rebroadcast without the expressed written consent
        of ESPN is highly likely.

             KAZ Vorpal:
                         OverLord of the World's Most Verbose Tagline

On Tue, 2 May 2000, Matthew PM wrote:

> Nice article; I hadn't previously known the details
> of this allowance in the constitution.  I'm just
> wondering:  Was this article prompted merely by
> whim, or by recent personal experience?

I was explaining it to someone a few weeks ago, who'd just gotten out of
jury duty for refusing to agree to convict on a law he disagreed with
(he's an evangelical Christian), who hadn't actually realized his rights,
and it occurred to me that far more people would be likely to read "how to
get out of jury duty" than "You have the power of jury nullification", an
effort which has been on the net for years and gotten nowhere.

--
Words of the Sentient:

It is of the essence of the demand for equality before the law that people
should be treated alike in spite of the fact that they are different.
                                           --Friedrich Hayek

                                --------------------

            http://www.smart.net/~kaz/     mailto:kaz@...

               AIM/Yahoo/irc/AOL Screen Name: KAZVorpal    ICQ# 1912557

                                         --

        This has been a  Sentient Moment,  brought to you by the makers of
        /True Democracy/,  /The Words of the Sentient/,  and various other
        Pompous Pontifications. All opinions are for entertainment purposes
        only; we don't actually claim to predict the future, even though we
        say we do repeatedly in our infomercial.  Any actions taken by the
        proletariat based on the content of this  Sentient Moment  are the
        sole responsibility of the  consumer,  and are not proposed or
        endorsed by  UltraMegaLimitless  or the employees of  KAZ Vorpal.
        This is only a serving suggestion, this product does not actually
        contain toast and orange juice, but IS a part of this balanced
        breakfast. Use or rebroadcast without the expressed written consent
        of ESPN is highly likely.

             KAZ Vorpal:
                         OverLord of the World's Most Verbose Tagline

Ban testing for all medical problems in Albany, then wait awhile, the race
problems problem will surely go away.

I wonder if anyone thought about calibrating the machine properly before
placing it on display before the politically correct race based audience.
While the legislator was obviously an asshole, I suggest that the marketing
folks at the company that was trying to sell the machine before properly
calibrating it should be canned on the spot. Maybe those minority folk that
were so pissed would feel a little better, and the investors backing that
machine might also.

We live in a race based society, and marketing people that don't understand
that will suffer the consequences whether or not we agree with the
principles of a race based society.

The NerdiFool


-----Original Message-----
From: KAZ Vorpal [mailto:kaz@...]
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 8:29 AM
To: sentient@egroups.com
Subject: [sentient] OK, Now I'm Pissed Off - Banning Race-BAsed Medicine


Lemme quote the Associated Press, first:

> ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - A hospital removed the bone-density scanner it
> brought to a state Capitol health fair after protests from minorities
> upset that the machine, which screens for osteoporosis, was accurate on
> white women only.
>
> The machine was calibrated using genetic data on white women, prompting
> Bellevue Woman's Hospital to post ``White women only'' signs around its
> booth at the fair Monday.
>
> ``I don't understand why you would bring a machine for white women only
> to a public place where there are multiple races. That's very
> insulting,'' said Rita Matthews, a state worker who is black. ``It's
> like we're back in the '40s and '50s.''
>
> Ruth Fidler, who was conducting the tests, said she could not verify the
> accuracy of the test on non-white women. She agreed to pack up her
> machine and leave after state Assemblyman Keith Wright, chairman of the
> Black, Puerto Rican and Hispanic Legislative Caucus, told her it
> shouldn't be used on public property.
>

Because /science/ says this machine only works accurately on white women,
this racist asshole assemblyman is going to deprive those women whom the
osteoperosis screening DOES help.

This world is full of idiots.

Maybe we can move the list to another planet.

I say we ban screening for sickle-cell anemia.

--

Words of the Sentient:

It is of the essence of the demand for equality before the law that people
should be treated alike in spite of the fact that they are different.
                                           --Friedrich Hayek

                                --------------------

            http://www.smart.net/~kaz/     mailto:kaz@...

               AIM/Yahoo/irc/AOL Screen Name: KAZVorpal    ICQ# 1912557

                                         --

        This has been a  Sentient Moment,  brought to you by the makers of
        /True Democracy/,  /The Words of the Sentient/,  and various other
        Pompous Pontifications. All opinions are for entertainment purposes
        only; we don't actually claim to predict the future, even though we
        say we do repeatedly in our infomercial.  Any actions taken by the
        proletariat based on the content of this  Sentient Moment  are the
        sole responsibility of the  consumer,  and are not proposed or
        endorsed by  UltraMegaLimitless  or the employees of  KAZ Vorpal.
        This is only a serving suggestion, this product does not actually
        contain toast and orange juice, but IS a part of this balanced
        breakfast. Use or rebroadcast without the expressed written consent
        of ESPN is highly likely.

             KAZ Vorpal:
                         OverLord of the World's Most Verbose Tagline


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get paid for the stuff you know!
Get answers for the stuff you don’t. And get $10 to spend on the site!
http://click.egroups.com/1/2200/6/_/914540/_/957281341/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
sentient-unsubscribe@egroups.com

Nice article; I hadn't previously known the details
of this allowance in the constitution.  I'm just
wondering:  Was this article prompted merely by
whim, or by recent personal experience?

Matthew


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

This is the first one I've really liked, for a very long time. And,
ironically, I was half asleep while writing it. Apparently mental
impairment inspires me.


                          How to Get Out of Jury Duty

           ...and be a hero for it, instead of a "bad citizen"!



      That damned envelope shows up, informing you that you must Serve
      Your Country. No, not a draft notice, the other one; Jury Duty.
      This might not seem so bad...you get to decide someone's fate and
      maybe read newspapers with holes cut in them...but the government
      has conveniently "forgotten" to link what they pay you to
      inflation, so that you're getting the same four cents per day (to
      make up for your lost work) as ancient Roman citizens got when
      Caesar was still in his bronze diapers.

      But if you try to ditch jury duty, you have to face twin hurdles:
      * You will be a "bad citizen", as the whole fabric of society
        depends on trial by jury...
      * And, far more important, if you try to skip out they'll reinstate
        capital punishment for jury evaders, or at least drag you into
        court and fine you or something.

      So you have to come up with a really "compelling reason" why you
      can't serve, despite your honest desire (cough) to life up to your
      civic duties.

      Unfortunately, the courts can sometimes reject even truly valid
      reasons, so the ones you're making up right now are even less
      likely to save your butt.

      But tremble in fear no longer, a solution is at hand!

      Simply Be Honest.

      All you have to do is admit to the court that you know the powers
      you would have as a juror.

      See, the courts weren't really in on the whole "Constitutional
      Convention" thing, and ever since 1787 they've been bending over
      backwards to weed out troublemakers who insist on sticking to some
      of the rights granted back then.

      No, not the gun nonsense. Not that free speech silliness. Nothing
      about income taxes being only for federal employees, or who gets to
      have abortions.

      What really pisses off judges and lawyers is that whole "Juries
      have the power to decide the law" thing.

      See, the guys who set up the whole US Government stuff decided to
      include Common Law in the court system. This includes the power of
      a jury to decide that the defendant did indeed break the law, but
      that the jury doesn't /approve of/ the law.

      So the defendant is not guilty by reason of the law sucking,
      essentially.

      Can you think of any laws like that?

      If you're like me (sorry, didn't mean to be insulting), you can
      probably think of more crappy laws than poop-free ones.

      So you, as a juror, get to reject any law you don't like.

      Now, having read this far, YOU ARE FREE FROM JURY DUTY!

      I kid you not. It was that simple.

      No judge or lawyer even denies that you have this power.

      But they do refuse to let anyone who /knows/ about this power serve
      on a jury.

      Nice loophole for the power-hungry courts, eh?

      But their little scam is YOUR salvation.

      All you have to do is tell them you know about your right to toss
      out bad laws, and they will decide you can't serve, just as if you
      knew too much about the case, or were eleven months pregnant.

      When they're screening you, and they get to the question

      "Will you follow the law as given, even if you disagree with it?",

      or any kind of question about "Jury Nullification" (the power you
      have to toss out...nullify...a law", or when they ask you if
      there's any reason you shouldn't serve, you simply tell him you
      know your rights as a juror, that you can reject any sucky law even
      if the judge instructs you not to. Don't worry, no matter how
      annoyed he looks, the judge will simply release you from jury duty,
      to go back home to your family and job or whatever.

      YOU are a hero, because you've struck a blow against their little
      evasion of freedom and justice...and yet you're also FREE FROM JURY
      DUTY!

      Whoo hoo!

Words of the Sentient:
Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction... if
exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear
conviction the charge of the court is wrong.
-- Alexander Hamilton, 1804

It is not only the juror's right, but his duty to find the verdict
according to his own best understanding, judgement and conscience, though
in direct opposition to the instruction of the court.
--John Adams, 1771

I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a
government can be held to the principles of its constitution.
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1789

It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of
their choice, if the laws are so voluminous that they cannot be read, or
so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they... undergo such
incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess
what it will be tomorrow.
-- James Madison





Words of the Sentient:

It is of the essence of the demand for equality before the law that people
should be treated alike in spite of the fact that they are different.
                                           --Friedrich Hayek

                                --------------------

            http://www.smart.net/~kaz/     mailto:kaz@...

               AIM/Yahoo/irc/AOL Screen Name: KAZVorpal    ICQ# 1912557

                                         --

        This has been a  Sentient Moment,  brought to you by the makers of
        /True Democracy/,  /The Words of the Sentient/,  and various other
        Pompous Pontifications. All opinions are for entertainment purposes
        only; we don't actually claim to predict the future, even though we
        say we do repeatedly in our infomercial.  Any actions taken by the
        proletariat based on the content of this  Sentient Moment  are the
        sole responsibility of the  consumer,  and are not proposed or
        endorsed by  UltraMegaLimitless  or the employees of  KAZ Vorpal.
        This is only a serving suggestion, this product does not actually
        contain toast and orange juice, but IS a part of this balanced
        breakfast. Use or rebroadcast without the expressed written consent
        of ESPN is highly likely.

             KAZ Vorpal:
                         OverLord of the World's Most Verbose Tagline

Lemme quote the Associated Press, first:

> ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - A hospital removed the bone-density scanner it
> brought to a state Capitol health fair after protests from minorities
> upset that the machine, which screens for osteoporosis, was accurate on
> white women only.
>
> The machine was calibrated using genetic data on white women, prompting
> Bellevue Woman's Hospital to post ``White women only'' signs around its
> booth at the fair Monday.
>
> ``I don't understand why you would bring a machine for white women only
> to a public place where there are multiple races. That's very
> insulting,'' said Rita Matthews, a state worker who is black. ``It's
> like we're back in the '40s and '50s.''
>
> Ruth Fidler, who was conducting the tests, said she could not verify the
> accuracy of the test on non-white women. She agreed to pack up her
> machine and leave after state Assemblyman Keith Wright, chairman of the
> Black, Puerto Rican and Hispanic Legislative Caucus, told her it
> shouldn't be used on public property.
>

Because /science/ says this machine only works accurately on white women,
this racist asshole assemblyman is going to deprive those women whom the
osteoperosis screening DOES help.

This world is full of idiots.

Maybe we can move the list to another planet.

I say we ban screening for sickle-cell anemia.

--

Words of the Sentient:

It is of the essence of the demand for equality before the law that people
should be treated alike in spite of the fact that they are different.
                                           --Friedrich Hayek

                                --------------------

            http://www.smart.net/~kaz/     mailto:kaz@...

               AIM/Yahoo/irc/AOL Screen Name: KAZVorpal    ICQ# 1912557

                                         --

        This has been a  Sentient Moment,  brought to you by the makers of
        /True Democracy/,  /The Words of the Sentient/,  and various other
        Pompous Pontifications. All opinions are for entertainment purposes
        only; we don't actually claim to predict the future, even though we
        say we do repeatedly in our infomercial.  Any actions taken by the
        proletariat based on the content of this  Sentient Moment  are the
        sole responsibility of the  consumer,  and are not proposed or
        endorsed by  UltraMegaLimitless  or the employees of  KAZ Vorpal.
        This is only a serving suggestion, this product does not actually
        contain toast and orange juice, but IS a part of this balanced
        breakfast. Use or rebroadcast without the expressed written consent
        of ESPN is highly likely.

             KAZ Vorpal:
                         OverLord of the World's Most Verbose Tagline

Having only received feedback from Christopher, probably because of the
horrible service we were getting at listbot, I finished editing the
article and put it online. Here's the text, still looking for the sam ol'
feedback:



                     Has Alan Greenspan Gone Mad?
                                 or
         How the Federal Reserve Confuses Good Growth with Bad



      One man has more power over the US economy than any other human
      being, ignoring conspiracy theories. It is not the President. It is
      not Bill Gates. It is, as you probably know, the Chairman of the
      Federal Reserve.

      This man controls the very stuff we use to interact in the US
      economy...or, for that matter, any other economy in the world, the
      US Dollar being the official world currency.

      It was the Chairman who, in 1929, responded to a growing currency
      shortage (brought on by a Republican tax increase and tariff, among
      other things) by reducing the amount of new money available,
      ensuring the onset of the Great Depression.

      Another Chairman, at the behest of the Democrats and Republicans of
      his day, screwed up the movement of money in the seventies, helping
      cause the famous "stagflation". This disproved the already
      illogical theories of the "Keynesian" economists of the last few
      decades, but also causing a tremendous amount of suffering with
      double-digit inflation, unemployment, and interest rates all at the
      same time.

      The current Chairman, Alan Greenspan, has been causing a different
      kind of problem, and one subtle enough that he's often mistakenly
      credited with actually helping.

      See, he has this strange idea that an economy can "heat up", "grow
      too fast", and other odd phrases which make more sense when applied
      to toddlers than to trillion dollar economies. He actually...I kid
      you not...thinks that hurting the economy is good for it, just in
      case it might do "too well".

      OK, it sounds like something from "doublespeak" in George Orwell's
      1984. "Freedom is slavery", "War is peace", and such
      doubleplusgoodthink. But it's not quite that bad. Well, not
      intentionally.

      Greenspan seems to believe in the "Keynesian" theory (yeah, the
      kind discredited by the disaster of the seventies' stagflation)
      which blames economic failure on economic health, instead of on the
      government mismanagement which has always, historically, preceded
      economic failures.

      They think that, if things get too good, this will make things get
      bad. Like being so healthy you get sick from it. Hey, don't look at
      me, I didn't make this up.

      Greenspan's main fetish is "inflation". He thinks that economic
      growth causes inflation, somehow.

      The problem with his theory is that he looks at "growth" in a very
      simple-minded way.

      He realizes that here have been many times in history where the
      "growth" was not real. It was caused by governments printing extra
      money...which you could call fake money, since they just make extra
      "out of thin air".

      When you print extra money, of course, you end up with more money
      but the same amount of stuff to buy with it, so the money ends up
      being worth less.

      Imagine a clubhouse where the kids trade apples for play dollars.
      There are ten apples, and ten dollars. You could imagine that the
      average apple will be worth one dollar. Bring ten extra dollars
      into the club, and suddenly the average apple will be worth TWO
      dollars, or more accurately, each dollar will only be worth a half
      of an apple. That is inflation.

      This, of course, is what happens when the US government, going
      through Alan Greenspan or his ilk, prints so much extra money that
      it makes the economy seem to grow. The growth is fake, and causes
      more harm than good. We are, essentially, being tricked into buying
      things we wouldn't have otherwise chosen, with the extra money,
      like taking cocaine, which fooled your body into feeling better
      than it really is. But worse; it causes inflation, which is
      terribly harmful to poor and middle class people.

      But what happens if the economy grows on its own, as it is doing
      now?

      Well, any economist with half a particle of sense and a basic set
      of math skills can tell you what happens:

      You get DEflation.

      Imagine if the kids sneak out and pick ten more apples from the
      nearby orchard. Now there are twenty apples, but there are still
      ten dollars. Now the average apple is worth fifty cents, instead of
      one dollar (or two dollars under inflation).

      We can think of real economic growth as new apples, and the extra
      money Greenspan prints as the kids' extra funny money. In more ways
      than one.

      Real economic growth like the current growth of the US economy. It
      is, as you probably know if you're reading this online, natural
      growth caused by the Information Revolution, which makes the
      Industrial Revolution look pale by comparison. Actual value is
      being added to the economy by the constant invention of new
      services and better ways of transmitting old kinds of information,
      like banking, stocks, and research.

      This means the value of the economy is truly increasing. Your body
      feels healthy for good reasons, instead of from cocaine.

      Now what if you want to keep one apple worth about one dollar, in
      the clubhouse, so things won't get too confusing? Then you "print"
      extra funny money at a rate of about one dollar for each new apple.

      Any faster, and you get inflation. The apples cost more.

      And slower, and you get deflation. The apples cost less.

      Deflation, you see, is almost as harmful as inflation. The Great
      Depression involved deflation.

      And thus the extra money being printed actually can help keep
      things balanced, holding deflation and therefore economic
      depression at bay.

      But Mister Greenspan is sticking to some very outdated theories
      which ignore the deflation half.

      Instead of continuing to create extra money, trying to match the
      growth of the economy, he acts as if he's already printed too much
      money and is causing fake growth.

      He then "raises rates", which he thinks of as being like printing
      less fake money (though this has failed to work even that way in
      the past). If he does reduce the amount of added money, this may
      actually harm the economy. Which is what he desires.

      But, as we all know, it has an even more direct, harmful effect on
      the economy.

      It causes people to put less money INTO the economy, and put it
      into government bonds and other idleness instead. This sounds good
      to them, because of the higher interest rates he has ensured
      they'll get, but it means there is less investment in things which
      actually help the economy grow. The economy is creating new things,
      and needs investment to fund this, but he drives that
      investment...that "capital", away.

      So, sure enough, he makes the economy "slow down".

      But since it was natural growth, that wasn't necessary. It's like
      taking a mild poison so you won't feel "too healthy", on the theory
      that being naturally healthy is exactly like snorting cocaine,
      which makes you FEEL healthy but is bad for you in the long run.

      Now to be fair, there is another reason Mister Greenspan thinks
      being healthy causes inflation. He will tell you that he doesn't
      like to see too many people working. He thinks forcing about six or
      seven million people to be unemployed is good for the economy,
      because it gives employers an advantage over workers.

      If there isn't a good chunk of millions of people desperate for a
      job, he'll explain (in prettier words), then people will have to
      pay workers what they are actually worth in a fair deal. This will
      make employers raise their prices, which will cause inflation.

      The problem with this is the same as with the other cause of
      inflation. Since the economy is growing naturally, the businesses
      are, of course, doing better, and even making more "money", meaning
      wealth of whatever kind. It is from that added money, of course,
      that the pay increases will draw, since the better balance of
      workers and jobs will indeed increase employee pay.

      The company cannot, you see, just arbitrarily raise its prices, or
      else it will lose business to any competitor who does NOT raise his
      prices. That competitor will then make more money than it would if
      it raised its own prices. And the added money it is making allows
      it to raise pay with no new cost to itself, overall.

      "Ah", Greenspan would say in that patronizing way of his, "but now
      the workers have more money to SPEND"...which (as you can probably
      guess) he thinks is a bad thing.

      See, he figures that more money to spend means they'll spend more
      money on buying the SAME things, allowing businesses to raise their
      prices despite the competition thing I mentioned earlier.

      But, of course, this is a growing economy. So there are more things
      out there to spend money on, rather than spending more money on the
      same stuff.

      Remember the clubhouse? Let's peek in and see what's happening.

      This time we increase the dollars, but we don't increase the number
      of apples. The price of apples goes up, right? BZZZ...wrong. See,
      we introduce toy whistles into the clubhouse "economy", about one
      for every one extra dollar. So the average of all of the
      "merchandise" combined is still one dollar per unit.

      This is like the now higher-paid workers, who are spending the
      extra money on computers (which, though you and I are used to them,
      are still a relatively new thing for the average household), on a
      monthly Internet connection, new software, maybe digital cable
      (which I have, and it's darned expensive), digital cameras, and
      whatever else the new growth brings...instead of just paying extra
      for their old stuff and driving up prices.

      So "allowing" people the freedom to be employed doesn't necessarily
      drive up prices, either.

      Then why does Alan Greenspan think it does? Why force people to be
      unemployed, companies to suffer, people's retirement money to be
      destroyed by a stock market made unstable by fears of Greenspan's
      hatred of success, and other such ugliness to happen?

      Maybe he's one of those old fogies who got sucked into all the
      neo-socialism we're taught in college, and simply can't do the
      math, right? There are plenty of "economists" out there clinging to
      the old excuses Meynard Keynes invented to give...well...people
      like the Federal Reserve Chairman more power.

      But no. He's not one of those silly, miseducated people who missed
      having access to the idea of real economists in college.

      See, he used to be an "objectivist". A kind of "libertarian", who
      thinks that you should never control an economy, as this is
      controlling the people in the economy (like forcing them to be
      unemployed, for example), and that this always does more harm than
      good, the way printing too much money or raising interest rates to
      drive money away from private citizens does.

      He supposedly knew all the kind of stuff I'm explaining here.

      Other truly expert economists who, while not being objectivist (and
      I'm no fan of objectivism), understand the same theories he once
      did still oppose what he's doing now.

      Take, for example, the Nobel prize-winning economist Milton
      Friedman.

      Friedman, a peer of Greenspan's...in fact, actually a little older
      and probably someone Greenspan studied...has carefully explained
      how a government money provider like the Federal Reserve must
      carefully add new money to the economy every year, to match its
      growth.

      He understands...so why doesn't Greenspan, any more?

      Hey, don't look at me. If I ever meet him, I'm going to ask him
      myself.

      Maybe he's just gone insane.

      I mean, it couldn't be that he is using the set of arguments which
      gives his position the most power, at the cost of the rest of us,
      right?

                                                                        by
    KAZ trafficX

                      Links to Related Sites and Reading

      * link here
      *

                 Buy These Related Books, through Amazon.com

    Ain't Nobody's Businesss If You Do - Peter McWilliams
           This book is a fun, yet brilliant, expose of how prohibition
           (tobacco, alcohol, et cetera) causes more of exactly what it's
           supposed to stop. Everyone can read it and be entertained, and
           yet even experts will learn from it. Sorta like V-8 Splash

                            Search for More Books

      (_) Books (_) Music Enter keywords... ____________________ Search
    Amazon.com logo

      Words of the Sentient:

      ...this government, swollen and arrogent with pelf, goes butting
      into our business...It checks the amount of tropical oils in our
      snack foods, tells us what kind of gasoline we can buy for our cars
      and how fast we can drive them, bosses us around about retirement,
      education, and what's on TV; counts our noses and asks fresh
      questions about who's still living at home and how many bathrooms
      we have; decides whether the door to our office or shop should have
      steps or a wheelchair ramp; decrees the sex and complexion of the
      people we hire there; lectures us on safe sex; dictates what we can
      sniff, smoke, and swallow; and waylays young men, ships them to
      distant places, and tells them to shoot people they don't even
      know.
      -- P.J.O'Rourke

    GSAnet Banner Swap
    [LINK]

      SC: FREE! SmartClicks: Click Here!
      SmartClicks: Target Advertising For Free
      LinkExchange
      LinkExchange Member



Words of the Sentient:

It is of the essence of the demand for equality before the law that people
should be treated alike in spite of the fact that they are different.
                                           --Friedrich Hayek

                                --------------------

            http://www.smart.net/~kaz/     mailto:kaz@...

               AIM/Yahoo/irc/AOL Screen Name: KAZVorpal    ICQ# 1912557

                                         --

        This has been a  Sentient Moment,  brought to you by the makers of
        /True Democracy/,  /The Words of the Sentient/,  and various other
        Pompous Pontifications. All opinions are for entertainment purposes
        only; we don't actually claim to predict the future, even though we
        say we do repeatedly in our infomercial.  Any actions taken by the
        proletariat based on the content of this  Sentient Moment  are the
        sole responsibility of the  consumer,  and are not proposed or
        endorsed by  UltraMegaLimitless  or the employees of  KAZ Vorpal.
        This is only a serving suggestion, this product does not actually
        contain toast and orange juice, but IS a part of this balanced
        breakfast. Use or rebroadcast without the expressed written consent
        of ESPN is highly likely.

             KAZ Vorpal:
                         OverLord of the World's Most Verbose Tagline

You're wasting your time: religious zealots can't convinced -- that's why
they're zealots!  Mostly they can be targetted and belittled etc, which is
more fun anyway ;-)

seriously, tho, I'm assuming the zealots  you refer to are Christian type
zealots, as they're the ones that sic the eye for an eye thing most often.
The simplest rebuttal is that Jesus ("the" Christ, Kaz ;-)) tossed out the
eye for an eye practice and replaced it with the turn the other cheek and
forgive seventy times seven ideas.

The other point you could raise is actually the basis for the assumptions I
listed below.  Eye for an eye only works when the executor of sentence is
infallible.  Humans are fallible.  Hence choose the other route (above) to
be safe.  Judge not lest you be judged and all that sort of thing.

I think that the whole question of deterrence is a waste of time anyway.
Deterrence assumes that external factors will affect a person's actions to
the extent that they will be drastically different.  Not killing someone you
are about to kill is something drastically different to actually killing
them.  The truth is that if human beings don't even change under the strong
influence of sound, logical reason, they aren't going to change for anything
else.

The only action that society can take to protect itself from criminals is to
get rid of them -- relative to society.  Remove them, lock em up, apply
whatever method, but just keep them away from other people.

I personally believe that rehabilitation programmes are bunk too.  A person
only changes if they want to change.  Show me someone who actually /wants/
to go to prison... the point is that the programmes fail before they begin
because those subjected to it would rather be out there living as modern day
Vikings.

mmmmbeer.




_______________________________________
Chris McClement
BoE IT

Visit BoE on the Web! <http://www.boe.co.za>

Warning: Any unauthorised use or interception of this e-mail is illegal. If
this e-mail is not intended for you, you may not copy, distribute or
disclose the contents to anyone. Save for bona fide company matters, BoE
does not accept any responsibility for the opinions expressed in this e-mail



|  -----Original Message-----
|  From: nerdifool [mailto:nerdifool@...]
|  Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2000 10:45 PM
|  To: sentient@egroups.com
|  Subject: [sentient] On Chris's Death Penalty Argument - Long Rant
|
|
|  Discussion List of the Sentient - http://www.smart.net/~kaz/
|
|  Christopher McClement wrote:
|
|
|  IF we assume:
|
|  1. Every murder is solved correctly
|  2. Every murderer is correctly proved guilty
|  3. No innocent men/women are accused
|  4. The death penalty is applied swiftly and unmercifully to every
|  murderer...
|
|   would it not /then/ be a deterrent?  Isn't the problem with
|  the deterrent
|  argument that the justice system is flawed, and can either
|  make a mistake
|  and convict an innocent person, or be beaten and pardon a
|  guilty person -
|  thus reducing the whole process to being an effectively
|  arbitrary system?
|  Humans are very good at convincing themselves that what is
|  "just" won't
|  necessarily be applied to them, that they will "get away
|  with it". Remove
|  that chance absolutely, and what is the result?
|
|  Of course this is hypothetical, but I think it is worth
|  addressing.  I'm not
|  convinced by any argument for or against the death penalty
|  as much as by the
|  idea that we cannot EVER make the assumptions I've listed
|  above based on the
|  fact that we are human and we're going to fuck it up at some point.
|
|  Chris
|
|  Your argument is much like my own, (and it works for me)
|  however, I have
|  never been able to convince the more religious zealots
|  around me that "eye
|  for an eye" and all that crap is not appropriate in our
|  society. I can't
|  even convince them that a life sentence is more of a
|  deterrent than death by
|  decapitation, hanging, shooting, electrocution, gassing or
|  drugging.  I know
|  it would be a greater deterrent for me, because I have so
|  much to live for,
|  even at my advanced age.  But for the less affluent, less
|  educated, (a
|  ghetto gang banger, a border drug smuggler or an Islamic
|  terrorist) he
|  probably doesn't see things the same way.  In the case of
|  crimes of passion,
|  the death penalty offers no deterrence at all.
|
|  For the religious right (they are both politically right of
|  center and more
|  correct than anyone else), there can be no judicial error,
|  especially not
|  after 10 years of appeals and judicial reviews.  Never mind
|  the sixteen or
|  so that have been proven guilty once, reviewed and appealed
|  several times,
|  and then found innocent by new technology.  I'm told by one
|  associate, "We
|  can't be perfect, but without the death penalty, we have no
|  way to even
|  address the problem."  Then of course they all argue that
|  the death penalty
|  saves money because you don't have to take care of the
|  murderous bastard for
|  more than about 10 years.  Of course, keeping people on
|  death row for 10
|  years is not more expensive than keeping them for life (if
|  you ignore all of
|  the costs involved in the legal system).  Would the amount
|  of legal costs go
|  down after the first few years of a life sentence?  I doubt
|  it, but at least
|  the legal mistakes would not be final.  In many respects the
|  legal mistake
|  is permanent, even though the finality of death is not
|  present.  It just
|  allows the perpetrator of the injustice (us) a little better
|  conscience.
|
|  Do you have some logical (or illogical) arguments that can be used to
|  convince people that the bible, with all of it's
|  inconsistencies (I guess
|  I've just committed a sin), while a good morality and ethics
|  model, is not
|  an appropriate guideline for modern social behavior
|  modification technology.
|  The fact that "eye for eye" was appropriate 2000 years ago
|  when direct
|  torture was the accepted behavior modification technique,
|  does not justify
|  the death penalty now, any more than maiming or flogging is
|  justified now.
|
|  On the other hand, I have no good alternative to the death
|  penalty that
|  satisfies either the religious zealots or the prison system budget
|  requirements.  Rather than dwell on the question of "Is the
|  Death Penalty
|  justified, or right", how about some discussion about what
|  we can do in
|  modern society other than keep on gassing the bastards or
|  pumping them full
|  of dope just to save budget money.  After all, we don't want
|  to keep all of
|  our mistakes in jail until we know if we made a mistake or
|  not.  That isn't
|  much better than sudden death immediately after verdict.
|
|  Maybe we can "re-educate" the murderer, like in brain
|  washing, so he is
|  rehabilitated and won't murder anyone again.  Let's see,
|  what should the
|  test be?  Oh, yes, he tells the prison shrink that he won't
|  do it again.
|  Then he tells the warden, then the parole board, and then he
|  tells the guy
|  at the end of his gun, that he won't murder again, if the
|  guy hands over the
|  cash.  Sure.  How about lobotomy?  One approach might be a
|  combination of
|  lobotomy and brain stem cell technology, cut off the bad
|  part and grow some
|  new stuff in his head.  Oh I forgot, that wouldn't keep the
|  social stigma of
|  conviction from ruining his life anyway.  Might as well zap
|  the bastard and
|  get it over with.
|
|  How about forensic detection technology?  Can we get
|  forensic science out of
|  the denial stage in our courts and into an accepted state as
|  hard fact?  Can
|  we educate our judges and prosecutors, as well as the
|  forensic scientists,
|  so that expert testimony is communicable to the court and
|  it's participants,
|  without them falling asleep on the bench, or the jury
|  snoring louder than
|  the bailiff?  Consider that we have the quality control
|  technology to build
|  computer chips that require contamination free handling
|  throughout the
|  process, but we can't get evidence collected at a crime
|  scene through the
|  police system to the lab and into the courtroom presentation
|  in any form
|  that can't be questioned.
|
|  How about trashing the legal codes and start over?  Or at
|  least delete the
|  possibility of use of circumstantial evidence in the criminal justice
|  system.  If you can't prove it in undeniable evidence, hard
|  fact, the kind
|  you prove without refute, then you can't have a conviction.
|  Problem is that
|  the prosecutors are all lawyers, and all the legislators are
|  lawyers, so how
|  do we get a word in edgewise.  Without circumstantial
|  evidence, about 40% of
|  all death penalty convictions would never pass judge or
|  jury.  Where would
|  that leave the career of the prosecutor?  Might raise my
|  opinion of him, but
|  not the opinions of the religious right or the media (no bad
|  news is real
|  bad news).
|
|  While we are in that area, perhaps we could tighten up the
|  requirements on
|  prosecutors.  How about a totally independent Grand Jury
|  that reviews the
|  evidence presented by a prosecutor, and then hears counter
|  arguments by an
|  independent "Grand Jury Counselor" who is paid to take the
|  opposite side of
|  every DA's argument, and required to be of opposite
|  political persuasion
|  from the District Attorney?  Boy, would that go over like
|  the proverbial
|  fart in church.
|
|  Then we should also have some discussion around how to
|  remove the influences
|  in society that cause murder in the first place, or at least
|  give people
|  some tolerable way to deal with them.  Thus we might have an
|  approach to
|  dealing with the causes of child molestation that lead to
|  murdering the
|  child, or corporate employee manipulation that leads to mass
|  retaliatory
|  shooting sprees.  As a suggestion, how about removing the
|  rights of the
|  media to focus world attention instantly on every societal
|  aberration that
|  occurs.  These ideas, if possible to implement, might reduce
|  murder, thus
|  reducing the need for the death penalty in the eyes of the
|  religious zealots
|  that continue to vote for it.
|
|  Of course we could use gun registration or control.  It does
|  seem to work in
|  England; it just doesn't work on IRA terrorists.  An of
|  course here in the
|  US, it won't work on bank robbers, cop killers, drug
|  dealers, drive by gang
|  bangers, kids that kill their abusive parents with a stolen
|  gun, kids that
|  murder their playground bullies with an adult providing the
|  gun, all because
|  these folks don't really give a shit about your gun control
|  law.  I not sure
|  who gun control works on, but with all guns registered, or
|  with all guns
|  made illegal, murder by gunshot caused by the average
|  citizen walking down
|  the street with his Glock 9, or driving down the freeway,
|  would not likely
|  be reduced to any extent, because the ego that lives behind
|  that Glock
|  doesn't give a shit for your gun control.  I guess I'm not
|  happy about
|  loosing rights any more than anyone else, so someone come up
|  with a better
|  approach.  Please don't give me any politically correct
|  argument about
|  gunlocks.  I'm not interested in some half assed technology
|  approach to make
|  the gun useless to its owner.  If we allow the guy to own a
|  gun, then we
|  need to make sure he is socially and mentally responsible to
|  do so with
|  respect to all other members of society.  That's why I don't
|  own guns, but
|  support gun registration at all points of sale, not leaving
|  any opening at
|  the local trade show.  When I buy a car at the auto show, no
|  one gripes
|  about the state requiring me to license it.  I'm not afraid
|  that the state
|  will come around and take my car away from me either, after
|  all, they would
|  loose the licensing revenue.
|
|  Frankly, I don't see a way to get rid of the death penalty,
|  though I vote
|  against it at every opportunity.  It is wrong, illogical, immoral,
|  unethical, and what ever negative things you wish, but it is
|  still here, and
|  it ain't goin' away, at least any time soon.  My local
|  politicians said so,
|  and since they pay no attention to us voters, unless we send
|  $500 to their
|  campaign fund, there ain't much else to talk about.
|
|  The NerdiFool
|
|
|
|  -------------------------------------------------------------
|  -----------
|  Was the salesman clueless? Productopia has the answers.
|  http://click.egroups.com/1/3019/6/_/914540/_/957131841/
|  -------------------------------------------------------------
|  -----------
|
|  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
|  sentient-unsubscribe@egroups.com
|
|
|

Heidi, I don't know why you reserved your rant just for me, so I've
forwarded it with my reply to this discussion list.  I think I need to point
out that I was putting forward a hypothesis, not supporting a particular
stance one way or the other, when I stated "If we assume..."

You'll in fact notice in my closing paragraph that I take a position against
the death penalty based on the "innocent proven guilty" argument.

So you're effectively preaching to the converted here.  Read to the end of
the email ;-)




_______________________________________
Chris McClement
BoE IT

Visit BoE on the Web! <http://www.boe.co.za>

Warning: Any unauthorised use or interception of this e-mail is illegal. If
this e-mail is not intended for you, you may not copy, distribute or
disclose the contents to anyone. Save for bona fide company matters, BoE
does not accept any responsibility for the opinions expressed in this e-mail



-----Original Message-----
From: Heidi Carlson [mailto:hide27@...]
Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2000 4:50 PM
To: chrisis@...
Subject: RE:Capital punishment?


Hi there,
How are you?
WEll, let me ask you something. If you think for one minute that capital
punishment is deterant, think again. If that were the case, wouldn't less
and less people be murdering one another? Seriously. Think about it. WOuld
you consider how many people are found innocent after they have been
executed...more and more everyday, of innocent people are executed each day,

only to be found...innocent.YOu have no idea how the detectives and police
bribe people to confess so that they will get a lighter sentence, only to
have it backfire on their asses. Seriously, do more research, will you for
me? Since in fact that Ted Bundy, a serial killer and psychopath, did
succeed on his killing spree,he didnt succeed in getting the justice that he

felt he deserved,instead, he got a death sentence because the victims'
parents had a voice, they spoke how they felt, and the end result... Ted
died, while millions of people waited outside of the prison chanting,
laughing, cheering the executioner on, to fry Ted to the ultimate level of
pain, as he had to his victims. Ted Bundy got the electric chair, and they
gave him one jolt for every victim he killed and tortured. I do, however,
think that Ted did deserve what he got, but something in the back of my mind

still thinks they should have waited before executing him, cause sooner or
later, Ted would have to drop the soap in the shower, and that would be the
end of hte end, see where I'm getting at? Killers, psychopaths, convicted
murderers will get their karma, one way or another, I just do not agree with

capital punishment, back in the day, during the time of Ted Bundy's
execution, I read about his family in People's magazine, and needless to
say, I felt bad for them. It's not their fault that their father or son is a

serial killer. When a person is executed, no one thinks of the family that
has do deal with watching their family member become executed. Ya know?
WEll. I gotta run for now. Keep me posted. I know that we have different
views on this issue, but I'm not going to hate or hurt your feelings for
stating your opinions, those are your rights. BYE.
Love,
HEIDI C.
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

hehe, I see you took me seriously. ;-)

Chris

>>>"An eye for an eye" was the law at

a time when the same Hebrew society

was into human sacrifice, stoning

women (but not men) who cheated on

their husbands, and mass murdering

competitors. Not to mention polygamy,

nudity, and other things

fundamentalist Christians manage to

overlook.<<<

 

Right.  Deuteronomy, one of the books

that describes the crimes for which

the punishment is death, also says

that any disobedient son must be

stoned to death.  Any bible-thumper

that tries to quote OT law at me in

support of capital punishment must

first, IMHO, be willing to stone their

son for mouthing off to them (as

teenagers are wont to do).  I allow no

verses to be hand-picked out of the

bible, while others (in this case,

right beside them) are overlooked.

The only NT mention of capital

punishment that I can call to mind is

in Paul's letter to the Romans;

however, in this he is merely

reminding the Romans of the "Law" that

God laid out by decree.  If you read

the rest of that chapter, it turns

into a great big "Yeah, everyone

should die because everyone does

wrong, but since Jesus came, we're

okay.  Yay Jesus!"  So it, too, cannot

serve as a leg on which the death

penalty may stand.

 

Heh, I think it's fun, when disputing

fundies, to call up books that support

their point before *they* do... and

then shoot them down.  They don't get

time to even order their thoughts.

 

Matthew

On Sun, 30 Apr 2000, nerdifool wrote:

])IF we assume:
])
])1. Every murder is solved correctly
])2. Every murderer is correctly proved guilty
])3. No innocent men/women are accused
])4. The death penalty is applied swiftly and unmercifully to every
])murderer...
])
]) would it not /then/ be a deterrent?  Isn't the problem with the deterrent
])argument that the justice system is flawed, and can either make a mistake
])and convict an innocent person, or be beaten and pardon a guilty person -
])thus reducing the whole process to being an effectively arbitrary system?
])Humans are very good at convincing themselves that what is "just" won't
])necessarily be applied to them, that they will "get away with it". Remove
])that chance absolutely, and what is the result?

No, actually the incompetence of the justice system is only my third-line,
though hardest to refute, reason that execution is wrong.

If you had the four conditions above, then life in prison would still be as
effective a deterrent as execution.

If you think about it, few if any people would dismiss losing their
/effective/ life through imprisonment, but then turn around and worry about
being executed.

We could throw out item four, because one through three, plus life in prison,
would guarantee as much "deterrent" effect, without the added damage of a
government condoning murder /through/ the execution of criminals.

])Your argument is much like my own, (and it works for me) however, I have
])never been able to convince the more religious zealots around me that "eye
])for an eye" and all that crap is not appropriate in our society. I can't
])even convince them that a life sentence is more of a deterrent than death by
])decapitation, hanging, shooting, electrocution, gassing or drugging.  I know
])it would be a greater deterrent for me, because I have so much to live for,
])even at my advanced age.  But for the less affluent, less educated, (a
])ghetto gang banger, a border drug smuggler or an Islamic terrorist) he
])probably doesn't see things the same way.  In the case of crimes of passion,
])the death penalty offers no deterrence at all.

"An eye for an eye" was the law at a time when the same Hebrew society was
into human sacrifice, stoning women (but not men) who cheated on their
husbands, and mass murdering competitors. Not to mention polygamy, nudity, and
other things fundamentalist Christians manage to overlook.

Selective rationalization of meaningless /modern/ taboos using a convenient
ancient source.

])For the religious right (they are both politically right of center and more
])correct than anyone else), there can be no judicial error, especially not
])after 10 years of appeals and judicial reviews.  Never mind the sixteen or
])so that have been proven guilty once, reviewed and appealed several times,
])and then found innocent by new technology.  I'm told by one associate, "We
])can't be perfect, but without the death penalty, we have no way to even
])address the problem."  Then of course they all argue that the death penalty
])saves money because you don't have to take care of the murderous bastard for
])more than about 10 years.  Of course, keeping people on death row for 10
])years is not more expensive than keeping them for life (if you ignore all of
])the costs involved in the legal system).  Would the amount of legal costs go
])down after the first few years of a life sentence?  I doubt it, but at least
])the legal mistakes would not be final.  In many respects the legal mistake
])is permanent, even though the finality of death is not present.  It just
])allows the perpetrator of the injustice (us) a little better conscience.

Actually, the total cost of executing someone is higher than keeping them in
prison for life.

])On the other hand, I have no good alternative to the death penalty that
])satisfies either the religious zealots or the prison system budget
])requirements.  Rather than dwell on the question of "Is the Death Penalty
])justified, or right", how about some discussion about what we can do in
])modern society other than keep on gassing the bastards or pumping them full
])of dope just to save budget money.  After all, we don't want to keep all of
])our mistakes in jail until we know if we made a mistake or not.  That isn't
])much better than sudden death immediately after verdict.

Jesus never spells it out in the Gospels, but he comes across as strongly
against capital punishment, overall. Certainly in any specific case where it
comes up.

And since it's cheaper to imprison someone for life than to execute them, life
in prison satisfies the prison system budget requirement.


])How about trashing the legal codes and start over?  Or at least delete the

We should do that, regardless of capital punishment.

Just to introduce a shock, I'll point out that I've decided the "Rule of Law"
is a bad thing, and should be replaced by something which does /not/ allow bad
precendents which sneak by to then be used by all subsequent officials and
courts as an excuse to perpetuate that badness.

I've also concluded that the current "adversarial system" is also bad.

The idea that each of the two teams tries to prove their own point, regardless
of the truth, at all costs short of getting /caught/ breaking certain rules,
is unacceptable. It sounds good in some ivory tower of guys who spent way too
much time in debate club, but throws out the idea of /truth/, instead of
winning, as the real goal.

Restore the power of the jury to control the trial, returning the judge to his
proper role as mere arbitrator. The jury should be aware of their power to
overturn any law they wish, instead of a corrupt judge lying and claiming they
must "consider the crime by the given law" and convict if that law applies.

The defense should be free to mount /any/ defense it wishes, aside from fraud.
No more throwing out politically incorrect defenses without allowing the jury
to see them. There can be no justice if the accused is not allowed to choose
his own arguments.

No more strong jury selection by the prosecution and defense. The natural wish
of both sides is to get the most incompetent jury possible, so that the
outcome can be controled, not a matter of "truth and justice". The jury should
be screend /only/ for ridiculous kinds of bias, not mere knowledge of related
fields (like throwing doctors out of medical cases). In fact, a specialist
jury should be, at the minimum, an option.

])Of course we could use gun registration or control.  It does seem to work in
])England; it just doesn't work on IRA terrorists.  An of course here in the

Of course the simple fact is that violence was even lower in the UK when guns
were legal. It doesn't work, it's simply a factoid taken out of context.


--
Words of the Sentient:

Having grudgingly faced the truth of his misconduct, Bill Clinton must now
face his duty and resign.

The question turns not only on the unseemly facts around his affair with
Monica Lewinsky. It also turns on how Clinton spent the previous eight
months.

He lied to the country. He lied to members of his cabinet and let them
continue the falsehoods for his personal benefit. He used other officials
and spent tax dollars to stonewall, delay, deny. He took the lie into
American homes, into Congress and to the U.S. Supreme Court where, pushing
a bogus argument for presidential privilege, he forced the Secret Service
to take a legal bullet. ...

Unlike an apology, a resignation would be unequivocal, would pair his
contrition with discipline and accountability, and would begin to restore
to him a measure of respect.         -- The Seattle Times


                                --------------------

              http://www.smart.net/~kaz/     mailto:kaz@...

              AIM/Yahoo/irc/AOL Screen Name: KAZVorpal    ICQ# 1912557

                  ODP Editor: http://www.dmoz.org/profiles/kaz.html

                                         --

        This has been a  Sentient Moment,  brought to you by the makers of
        /True Democracy/,  /The Words of the Sentient/,  and various other
        Pompous Pontifications. All opinions are for entertainment purposes
        only; we don't actually claim to predict the future, even though we
        say we do repeatedly in our infomercial.  Any actions taken by the
        proletariat based on the content of this  Sentient Moment  are the
        sole responsibility of the  consumer,  and are not proposed or
        endorsed by  UltraMegaLimitless  or the employees of  KAZ Vorpal.
        Use or rebroadcast without the expressed written consent of  ESPN
        is highly likely.

             KAZ Vorpal:
                         OverLord of the World's Most Verbose Tagline

Discussion List of the Sentient - http://www.smart.net/~kaz/

Christopher McClement wrote:


IF we assume:

1. Every murder is solved correctly
2. Every murderer is correctly proved guilty
3. No innocent men/women are accused
4. The death penalty is applied swiftly and unmercifully to every
murderer...

  would it not /then/ be a deterrent?  Isn't the problem with the deterrent
argument that the justice system is flawed, and can either make a mistake
and convict an innocent person, or be beaten and pardon a guilty person -
thus reducing the whole process to being an effectively arbitrary system?
Humans are very good at convincing themselves that what is "just" won't
necessarily be applied to them, that they will "get away with it". Remove
that chance absolutely, and what is the result?

Of course this is hypothetical, but I think it is worth addressing.  I'm not
convinced by any argument for or against the death penalty as much as by the
idea that we cannot EVER make the assumptions I've listed above based on the
fact that we are human and we're going to fuck it up at some point.

Chris

Your argument is much like my own, (and it works for me) however, I have
never been able to convince the more religious zealots around me that "eye
for an eye" and all that crap is not appropriate in our society. I can't
even convince them that a life sentence is more of a deterrent than death by
decapitation, hanging, shooting, electrocution, gassing or drugging.  I know
it would be a greater deterrent for me, because I have so much to live for,
even at my advanced age.  But for the less affluent, less educated, (a
ghetto gang banger, a border drug smuggler or an Islamic terrorist) he
probably doesn't see things the same way.  In the case of crimes of passion,
the death penalty offers no deterrence at all.

For the religious right (they are both politically right of center and more
correct than anyone else), there can be no judicial error, especially not
after 10 years of appeals and judicial reviews.  Never mind the sixteen or
so that have been proven guilty once, reviewed and appealed several times,
and then found innocent by new technology.  I'm told by one associate, "We
can't be perfect, but without the death penalty, we have no way to even
address the problem."  Then of course they all argue that the death penalty
saves money because you don't have to take care of the murderous bastard for
more than about 10 years.  Of course, keeping people on death row for 10
years is not more expensive than keeping them for life (if you ignore all of
the costs involved in the legal system).  Would the amount of legal costs go
down after the first few years of a life sentence?  I doubt it, but at least
the legal mistakes would not be final.  In many respects the legal mistake
is permanent, even though the finality of death is not present.  It just
allows the perpetrator of the injustice (us) a little better conscience.

Do you have some logical (or illogical) arguments that can be used to
convince people that the bible, with all of it's inconsistencies (I guess
I've just committed a sin), while a good morality and ethics model, is not
an appropriate guideline for modern social behavior modification technology.
The fact that "eye for eye" was appropriate 2000 years ago when direct
torture was the accepted behavior modification technique, does not justify
the death penalty now, any more than maiming or flogging is justified now.

On the other hand, I have no good alternative to the death penalty that
satisfies either the religious zealots or the prison system budget
requirements.  Rather than dwell on the question of "Is the Death Penalty
justified, or right", how about some discussion about what we can do in
modern society other than keep on gassing the bastards or pumping them full
of dope just to save budget money.  After all, we don't want to keep all of
our mistakes in jail until we know if we made a mistake or not.  That isn't
much better than sudden death immediately after verdict.

Maybe we can "re-educate" the murderer, like in brain washing, so he is
rehabilitated and won't murder anyone again.  Let's see, what should the
test be?  Oh, yes, he tells the prison shrink that he won't do it again.
Then he tells the warden, then the parole board, and then he tells the guy
at the end of his gun, that he won't murder again, if the guy hands over the
cash.  Sure.  How about lobotomy?  One approach might be a combination of
lobotomy and brain stem cell technology, cut off the bad part and grow some
new stuff in his head.  Oh I forgot, that wouldn't keep the social stigma of
conviction from ruining his life anyway.  Might as well zap the bastard and
get it over with.

How about forensic detection technology?  Can we get forensic science out of
the denial stage in our courts and into an accepted state as hard fact?  Can
we educate our judges and prosecutors, as well as the forensic scientists,
so that expert testimony is communicable to the court and it's participants,
without them falling asleep on the bench, or the jury snoring louder than
the bailiff?  Consider that we have the quality control technology to build
computer chips that require contamination free handling throughout the
process, but we can't get evidence collected at a crime scene through the
police system to the lab and into the courtroom presentation in any form
that can't be questioned.

How about trashing the legal codes and start over?  Or at least delete the
possibility of use of circumstantial evidence in the criminal justice
system.  If you can't prove it in undeniable evidence, hard fact, the kind
you prove without refute, then you can't have a conviction.  Problem is that
the prosecutors are all lawyers, and all the legislators are lawyers, so how
do we get a word in edgewise.  Without circumstantial evidence, about 40% of
all death penalty convictions would never pass judge or jury.  Where would
that leave the career of the prosecutor?  Might raise my opinion of him, but
not the opinions of the religious right or the media (no bad news is real
bad news).

While we are in that area, perhaps we could tighten up the requirements on
prosecutors.  How about a totally independent Grand Jury that reviews the
evidence presented by a prosecutor, and then hears counter arguments by an
independent "Grand Jury Counselor" who is paid to take the opposite side of
every DA's argument, and required to be of opposite political persuasion
from the District Attorney?  Boy, would that go over like the proverbial
fart in church.

Then we should also have some discussion around how to remove the influences
in society that cause murder in the first place, or at least give people
some tolerable way to deal with them.  Thus we might have an approach to
dealing with the causes of child molestation that lead to murdering the
child, or corporate employee manipulation that leads to mass retaliatory
shooting sprees.  As a suggestion, how about removing the rights of the
media to focus world attention instantly on every societal aberration that
occurs.  These ideas, if possible to implement, might reduce murder, thus
reducing the need for the death penalty in the eyes of the religious zealots
that continue to vote for it.

Of course we could use gun registration or control.  It does seem to work in
England; it just doesn't work on IRA terrorists.  An of course here in the
US, it won't work on bank robbers, cop killers, drug dealers, drive by gang
bangers, kids that kill their abusive parents with a stolen gun, kids that
murder their playground bullies with an adult providing the gun, all because
these folks don't really give a shit about your gun control law.  I not sure
who gun control works on, but with all guns registered, or with all guns
made illegal, murder by gunshot caused by the average citizen walking down
the street with his Glock 9, or driving down the freeway, would not likely
be reduced to any extent, because the ego that lives behind that Glock
doesn't give a shit for your gun control.  I guess I'm not happy about
loosing rights any more than anyone else, so someone come up with a better
approach.  Please don't give me any politically correct argument about
gunlocks.  I'm not interested in some half assed technology approach to make
the gun useless to its owner.  If we allow the guy to own a gun, then we
need to make sure he is socially and mentally responsible to do so with
respect to all other members of society.  That's why I don't own guns, but
support gun registration at all points of sale, not leaving any opening at
the local trade show.  When I buy a car at the auto show, no one gripes
about the state requiring me to license it.  I'm not afraid that the state
will come around and take my car away from me either, after all, they would
loose the licensing revenue.

Frankly, I don't see a way to get rid of the death penalty, though I vote
against it at every opportunity.  It is wrong, illogical, immoral,
unethical, and what ever negative things you wish, but it is still here, and
it ain't goin' away, at least any time soon.  My local politicians said so,
and since they pay no attention to us voters, unless we send $500 to their
campaign fund, there ain't much else to talk about.

The NerdiFool

I received your opener at 11:20 AM PST.  Nine minutes transit time from you
to me.  Rather swift in comparison to the listbot's 37 hours.  I then
proceeded to reply by hitting the button and typing my message; never
noticing that the default address was to the "unsubscribe" address.  If you
loose a bunch of subscribers right away, that might be the reason.  It never
occurred to me that the eGroups would change the response address by default
to their unsubscribe.  I hope they don't do that with every message.

Glenn Curry
Retired Computer Nerd & Foolish Investor
nerdifool@...

-----Original Message-----
From: sentient Moderator [mailto:sentient-owner@egroups.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2000 11:11 AM
To: nerdifool@...
Subject: Welcome to the sentient group


Hello,

I've added you to my sentient group at eGroups, a free,
easy-to-use email group service. As a member of this group, you
may send messages to the entire group using just one email address:
sentient@egroups.com. eGroups also makes it easy to
store photos and files, coordinate events, and more.

Here's a description of the group:
------------------------------------------------------------------------

This list is for discussing anything the members find worthy.

The source of commonality is the relationship of this list to the Site fo
the Sentient, which is comprised of articles/columns on many socio-political
issues, from an intelligent, logical standpoint.

There is no political correctness required. There are no rules against
offending people, or cussing, or criticizing other list members.



------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's my introductory message for you:
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have, necessarily, decided to move the Mailing List of the Sentient to
EGroups, from Listbot.

Not only does Listbot lack essential features like a Digest, but as you
know...or will if the messages from last week ever actually reach you...it
is now actually failing to deliver messages to the list.

Please help us make the transition:

Pick out any email from the last week to which you'd like a reply, or any
other you wish.

Re-send it to the new list address -- sentient@egroups.com

Features of the new EGroups list:

Better archive format, where you can see who sent a message before reading
it, not just a title.

A digest, so you can get all messages in a single email, each day.

A calander

Polls

Link list

A file area

Database (I haven't investigated what this entails).

All in all, pretty nifty.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

TO START SENDING messages to members of this group, simply send email
to sentient@egroups.com

If you do not wish to belong to the sentient group, you
can unsubscribe by replying to this message, or by sending an email to
sentient-unsubscribe@egroups.com


Regards,

Moderator, sentient


SPECIAL NOTE FROM eGroups:  Because eGroups values your privacy,
it is a violation of our service rules for moderators to add subscribers
to a group against their wishes. If you feel this has happened, please
notify us at abuse@egroups.com

P.S.  If you would like to learn more about the sentient group,
please visit http://www.egroups.com/group/sentient and
enter the following sign-in information:

         Email address: nerdifool@...
         Password: xkvwemaj

This password has been randomly generated for you. Once you have signed
in, you should change your password by visiting
http://www.egroups.com/myprofile