Yet another attempt at getting us to carry dollar coins...

[Shapley]

Maybe they could put a hole in the coin, like the Chinese do with their betting coins. It would make them lighter, easy to identify, and easy to stack. (Chinese betting parlors used boards with pegs on which the coins were stacked.)




As a bonus, if the value of the dollar slides too far, they can serve double duty as washers.

V/R
Shapley

[Shapley]

T/B,

RE:

Just thought of a way that vending machine owners don't have to retool. Provide a relatively small machine that will convert the new dollar into quarters.

Kind of defeats the convenience thing, though, doesn't it? Most vendng machines will accept dollar bills. If you have to go to one machine to get change for the other, I think it'll be more convenient to stick with the bills.

It's not that big of deal to change over, IMHO. Despite all the fuss, few vending machines I am aware of are designed to accept dollar coins. The Post Office stamp machines despense them in change and, I assume, accept them. I've not seen a cola machine or arcade machine that accepts or dispenses them but, I have to admit, I don't drink cola and I seldom play arcade games, so I may be behind the times on those. Even small arcades, however, seem to have switched to tokens rather than cash, so I don't think it matters much to them.

Slot machines use coins the size of the Ike dollar, and will accept the Ike dollar, but most use casino-issued coins with no value outside of the casino itself. I've not seen any that tooled to accept Wal-Mart dollars and Carter Quarters, and I doubt that they exist. Many are now using the 'player card', a debit-type card that you insert into the machine. The machine withdraws and deposits credit to the card with each play, eliminating the need to carry around buckets of heavy coinage. The 'clink-clink-clink' of the coin payout may someday be a thing of the past.

V/R
Shapley

[analog]

Well, somebody brought a couple of the new dollar coins to the poker game last night.

The concensus:
They're definitely too close to the quarter in both size and color.

Moving the text "In God We Trust" from prominence on the face of the coin to ignominy on the edge is as an ill timed concession to the PC police, and was not well received.

a.

[Shapley]

Though they've been in circulation for over a week, I've yet to see one.

Unless, of course, I mistook it for a quarter!

[jamiebk]

Here is a good reason to seek out those $1.00 coins that we DO have:
################################
Missing words on new $1 coins mystify U.S. Mint
Thu Mar 8, 2007 8:06 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In God We Trust. In machines? Not so much.

An unknown number of new U.S. $1 coins bearing the image of George Washington are missing the words "In God We Trust" and other lettering along the edges, the U.S. Mint said on Wednesday.

The Mint released more than 300 million gold-colored, George Washington $1 coins last month, but it recently discovered a problem. The coins, made by the Philadelphia Mint, were supposed to have the inscriptions "In God We Trust," "E Pluribus Unum," the date and the mint mark around the edge.

It is unclear how the mistake occurred or how many of the coins are in circulation, according to the Mint statement. The Mint said it would make necessary technical adjustments in the manufacturing to eliminate the defect.

"The United States Mint understands the importance of the inscriptions 'In God We Trust' and 'E Pluribus Unum' as well as the mint mark and year on U.S. coinage. We take this matter seriously," the statement said.

"We also consider quality control a high priority. We are looking into the matter to determine a possible cause in the manufacturing process."

Robert Hoge, curator of North American coins and currency for the American Numismatic Society, said that collectors find coins with a mistake like this, known as a Mint error, desirable when a relatively small number are in circulation.

"Since it was an accident, there is no count of how many were created. That's always the question with a mint error and it's difficult to tell how many there might be," he said.

On the auction Web site eBay, one of the coins sold for $405.

One of the most famous Mint errors in the United States occurred in 1922. That year, "through carelessness or overzealousness," Hoge said, a defective die for the obverse, or head, side of the 1-cent piece failed to show the "D" mark indicating it was struck at the Denver Mint. One of those coins in mint condition would fetch upwards of $10,000, Hoge said.

[Haggis@wk]

I'm sure the "Godless Dollars™"pat. pending will stir up a lot of interest among collectors and the man in the street. Wonder if it was deliberate to get people looking for them?

[barfle]

It sounds like the separation between church and state may be recovering. Or is that too much to hope for?

[analog]

I took separation to mean respectful coexistence, not one trying to dominate (or eradicate) the other.

I'd like to see the phrase stay on our money out of respect for the old fashioned traits of humility and introspection, once considered social virtues.

Today's confrontational culture might warrant adding "Don't Tread on Me".

[jamiebk]

I got one of those irritating chain emails yesterday, but the content of the email was to petition the receipient to boycott the new dollar coin because it did not have "In God We Trust" on it. Sheesh talk about mis-informed. I think it is sad indeed that the phrase is no longer prominent on coin, but it is still there. Makes me wonder if the minting error was really an error or as Haggis said, a ploy to get people to seek them out.

[barfle]

I took separation to mean respectful coexistence, not one trying to dominate (or eradicate) the other.

[rant]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof. The reference to "God" is generally accepted to mean Jehovah, the god of Abraham, the one worshipped by Christians and Jews (and Moslems, although many of them have a far different picture of it). It seems like proclaiming trust in something you can't even define is not a good thing.[/rant]

[analog]

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

No quibble with that one. Else the aggressive factions would compete to 'establish' their views on everyone else. God help us if they captured the power of the state........


But I think individuals who are above religion ought to show consideration for those children of lesser gods who are not. It doesn't hurt to respect somebody's need for a brief school prayer first thing in the morning.

Conversely the state must deal with organizations, even if they hide in churches, that're trying to violently overthrow it. You can believe what you want but your actions are bound by law. And hopefully, by respect for neighbors.

.......It seems like proclaiming trust in something you can't even define is not a good thing.[/rant]

TheAA'ers handle it nicely with their phrase "God as you understand Him". It allows any definition from simple authority figure to Einstein's complex Mother Nature view, or beyond.

The explosive growth of twelve step programs tells me nihilism is failing an awful lot of people. Old time religion survives because it works better than nothing. And there's improved varieties around.

There's more to life than laws and science.
Especially when you feel personally let down by both.
Doesn't hurt for government to remind itself of that. After all, "they" is us.


Founders realized it too, but we've since moved away.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/cons ... /01.html#3

''Probably,'' Story also wrote, ''at the time of the adoption of the constitution and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.'' 8 The object, then, of the religion clauses in this view was not to prevent general governmental encouragement of religion, of Christianity, but to prevent religious persecution and to prevent a national establishment. 9

This interpretation has long since been abandoned by the Court, beginning, at least, with Everson v. Board of Education, 10 in which the Court, without dissent on this point, declared that the Establishment Clause forbids not only practices that ''aid one religion'' or ''prefer one religion over another,'' but as well those that ''aid all religions.'' Recently, in reliance on published scholarly research and original sources, Court dissenters have recurred to the argument that what the religion clauses, principally the Establishment Clause, prevent is ''preferential'' governmental promotion of some religions, allowing general governmental promotion of all religion in general. 11 The Court has not responded, though Justice Souter in a major concurring opinion did undertake to rebut the argument and to restate the Everson position. 12

[barfle]

But I think individuals who are above religion ought to show consideration for those children of lesser gods who are not. It doesn't hurt to respect somebody's need for a brief school prayer first thing in the morning.

I have no problem with anyone praying. I have a problem with someone telling someone else when, where, and how to pray, particularly when that someone else is not a volunteer.

TheAA'ers handle it nicely with their phrase "God as you understand Him". It allows any definition from simple authority figure to Einstein's complex Mother Nature view, or beyond.

So perhaps that's what should be printed on the currency?

The explosive growth of twelve step programs tells me nihilism is failing an awful lot of people. Old time religion survives because it works better than nothing. And there's improved varieties around.

I recognize the fact that many people need crutches to get around the confusion that comes from being an evolved animal in a civilized environment. That doesn't mean everyone should have the government preaching at them on every piece of legal tender.

There's more to life than laws and science.
Especially when you feel personally let down by both.
Doesn't hurt for government to remind itself of that. After all, "they" is us.

I'm not sure where such a limitation crept into my concerns. I've been let down by religion, so I don't find it a useful element in my existence. So perhaps the government (us) shoud keep in mind that belief does not necessarily lead to anything useful.

Founders realized it too, but we've since moved away.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/cons ... /01.html#3

Of course, the term "Christianity" isn't even universally agreed on as to its meaning. And it, along with many other concepts, have evolved with time. I consider myself a pretty big fan of the Constitution, but I also think the founding fathers made a few mistakes in it, some of which have been corrected (like slavery and universal adult suffrage).

[jamiebk]

I think the founding fathers knew exactly in whom they trusted. I see nothing wrong with having that on our currency. It surely beats trusting in something like federal govenment. Or perhaps we could use the following reference...

"Oh great, but not necessarily superior, being who dwells beyond this plane of existence and who is accessible only through prayer, meditation or crystals, we salute you without thereby acknowledging that you are entitled to greater respect than that accorded any other endangered species"

[analog]

Well, Barfle - your logic is as always, impeccable.

I have a problem with someone telling someone else when, where, and how to pray, particularly when that someone else is not a volunteer.

There is some threshold beyond which I too would bristle. I was raised with a brief morning school prayer hence am accustomed to it. Perhaps we have different trip points. I could not handle being diected to kneel on a rug five times a day, and would vigorously protest...

So perhaps that's what should be printed on the currency?

The thought is fine but it's too awkward for the space available. I'd be a lot happier if instead that became the generally accepted concept of "a higher power" and the rigor of fundamentalism were relaxed so it quit turning people off altogether.

I recognize the fact that many people need crutches to get around the confusion that comes from being an evolved animal in a civilized environment. That doesn't mean everyone should have the government preaching at them on every piece of legal tender.

There are people who can get through life with just their internal moral compass, is that what we call "autonomous"? They are the lucky ones. Too many folks fail to navigate and wind up like that poor Anna Nicole lady, exploited and miserable, and maybe dead too young .. But I have strayed from my original point here, I was aiming at the thought of keeping government humble. Admission that a higher power might exist is a first step toward humility. A simple statement by government on their currency affirms intent.

I'm not sure where such a limitation crept into my concerns. I've been let down by religion, so I don't find it a useful element in my existence. So perhaps the government (us) shoud keep in mind that belief does not necessarily lead to anything useful.

Mea culpa, you inferred no such limit.
Belief itself won't lead to anything unless it redirects action. Faith without works is dead, and all that.
Again, I see nothing wrong with government putting out a small signpost "spiritual help that-a-way", even though there's no one size fits all. I too felt let down by a hardcore fire & brimstone type. My personal higher power is Mother Nature. I find it takes constant effort to keep my narcissistic side at bay, and it still leaks out sometimes. Unaided, my internal compass was inadequate.

Of course, the term "Christianity" isn't even universally agreed on as to its meaning. And it, along with many other concepts, have evolved with time.

Human thought is evolving. The pendulum will continue to swing.

Thank you for taking me to task. It helps me form my thoughts.

a.

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

Oh great, but not necessarily superior, being who dwells beyond this plane of existence and who is accessible only through prayer, meditation or crystals, we salute you without thereby acknowledging that you are entitled to greater respect than that accorded any other endangered species

We'd need to mint larger coins. The four word version is more practical.

[barfle]

Well, Barfle - your logic is as always, impeccable.

I'm not sure it deserves such praise, but I'll accept it with the knowledge that it ain't always so.

There is some threshold beyond which I too would bristle. I was raised with a brief morning school prayer hence am accustomed to it. Perhaps we have different trip points. I could not handle being diected to kneel on a rug five times a day, and would vigorously protest...

Having been raised Catholic, I was taught to pray five times daily. Once before every meal, once when I got up, and once when I went to bed. While there certainly was ritual involved (sign of the cross, hands held just so, head bowed), it didn't get to the point of being on a particular rug, facing a particular direction. But it was bad enough.

I'd be a lot happier if instead that became the generally accepted concept of "a higher power" and the rigor of fundamentalism were relaxed so it quit turning people off altogether.

The thing is that the "higher power" is not demonstrated. And is therefore not trustworthy, particularly by those who write and enforce the laws I live under.

There are people who can get through life with just their internal moral compass, is that what we call "autonomous"? They are the lucky ones.

I think the important thing to realize is just why we behave the way we do, and why we so often don't want to behave so well. We evolved to be selfish, we evolved to be gluttonous, we evolved to be lustful. Not too sure about rage or pride. But we discovered that cooperation with our fellow tribesmen affords advantages to all of us, far exceeding the immediate gratification we get from taking whatever we feel the desire for. In a nutshell, that's morality and sin and why they exist. I can cite learned references if you are interested.

I was aiming at the thought of keeping government humble. Admission that a higher power might exist is a first step toward humility. A simple statement by government on their currency affirms intent.

How about "Congress shall make no law" or "of the people, by the people, and for the people?" Or even "We, the people?" That's what the government is supposed to be humble toward.

Again, I see nothing wrong with government putting out a small signpost "spiritual help that-a-way", even though there's no one size fits all.

I'm not one of those who feels offended by creches in parks at Christmas, although I'm against spending tax money for the creche. But when I see "In God We Trust" on every nickel, I keep wondering how the mouse in someone's pocket feels about being included in such a statement.

Side note: You probably remember the silver certificates - dollar bills that were backed by precious metals that were done away with in the sixties. They did not have the inscription. I have a record of "beatnick" poetry with a few lines that go somewhat like this: America, where the coins say "In God We Trust," but the dollar bills do not have it, being gods unto themselves. I thought it was funny.

I too felt let down by a hardcore fire & brimstone type. My personal higher power is Mother Nature. I find it takes constant effort to keep my narcissistic side at bay, and it still leaks out sometimes. Unaided, my internal compass was inadequate.

I won't go so far as to claim anything close to perfect behavior myself. But I realize that I am a member of a society, and that society expects certain behaviors from me. And even if I don't get "caught" by that society, I understand how my errant behavior harms the society, and, since I am a member of it, it harms me as well. That tends to keep me from stealing, lying, cheating on my wife, and doing sloppy work for my boss.

Human thought is evolving. The pendulum will continue to swing.

I see many people being upset about how the world is going to hell in a handbasket. That claim has been made since the invention of handbaskets (sorry, I believe it was before the US started numbering patents). One thing that's going to happen is change, and some of those changes result in discomfort for some of us. I see people griping about the price of gasoline, but my salary has outpaced that expense by a factor of five. I don't see people exclaiming how their salary has outpaced the price of gasoline, or how their vehicles get double the gas milage their old ones did. We tend to simply accept the beneficial changes, while making all sorts of noise about the ones we think are harmful to us.

Thank you for taking me to task. It helps me form my thoughts.

Taking you to task wasn't quite what I felt I was doing. I really do feel that you have the right to any opinion you want. I also have that right, but when we disagree, I want to explain why I feel the way I do.

[analog]

Thanks for your thoughtful post. It was quite interesting to see from whence you come.

"I am the sum total of my experience", or perhaps the prisoner of it. (Minus of course what I've forgot. )
I know I was imprinted by Tevye's "Tradition" soliloquy in Fiddler on the Roof, which I saw as a stage play early in my formative years. It's to the effect, 'when reason fails us, tradition will provide safe guidance ',, and indeed being a plodder in thought I not infrequently fall back to tradition when faced with situations requiring immediacy. So I may be more prone than some to hang onto old ways and their symbols. And so I will remain.

But we discovered that cooperation with our fellow tribesmen affords advantages to all of us, far exceeding the immediate gratification we get from taking whatever we feel the desire for. In a nutshell, that's morality and sin and why they exist.

The Golden Rule states this succinctly as well?
( "Tradition, tradition!!! ta ta tada da da dada boomp. )



As to the silver certificate, it had no shortage of reference to a Creator. On the back is the (in?)famous pyramid. Tradition in colonial times was only God could make anything perfect , anything manmade was imperfect. This tradition so permeated thought that the ladies making quilts included intentional flaws, maybe one duck swimming backward from the others or a star with different number of points. Accordingly the thirteen tier pyramid with its thirteen wide base is unfinished, and the eye of the Creator hovers just above man's unfinished work. (Side - was that Ike's inspiration for relocating the nation "under God" in the Pledge?).

The thing is that the "higher power" is not demonstrated. And is therefore not trustworthy, particularly by those who write and enforce the laws I live under.

I was a bit stumped and even went to Penn Law review to see what 'demonstrate' would mean in patent lawyer jargon. I think you might mean clearly bounded?

I just don't think Congress will undertake to define it themselves. Below is about as far as they will or should go. I just have to keep faith that in the aggregate, their judgement will be pretty good.

The Congress, by Public Law 100-307, has called on our citizens to reaffirm annually our dependence on Almighty God by recognizing a "National Day of Prayer."

Now, Therefore, I, William J. Clinton, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 2, 1996, as a National Day of Prayer. I encourage every citizen of this great Nation to pray, each in his or her own manner, seeking strength from God to face the challenges of today, requesting guidance for the uncertainties of tomorrow, and giving thanks for the rich blessings that our Nation has enjoyed throughout our history. "Do not pray for easy lives," said John F. Kennedy in 1963, "Pray to be stronger . . . ." May it be so with each of us.

In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this second day of April, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and ninety-six, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twentieth.

William J. Clinton

[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 11:10 a.m., April 3, 1996]

That's wikipedia, here's a more substantial reference:
(It's now officially first Thursday in every May.)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D ... L&summ2=m&

Thanks again,

a.

[barfle]

I have another side note, this time a joke about "tradition."

A pollster was visiting a rural area (pick your favorite, most likely including the word "hick" in it's description) when he happened upon a farmer in the field. He went over to the farmer and asked him about his political affilliation.

The farmer replied, "I'm a life-long (your less favorite party here)."

"Why is that?" asked the pollster.

"My daddy was a (party member), and my grandaddy was a (party member), and what's good enough for my daddy and my grandaddy is good enough for me."

"Well, perhaps I could ask your wife a few questions," replied the pollster.

"My daddy didn't have a wife, and my grandaddy didn't have a wife, and what's good enough for my daddy and my grandaddy is good enough for me."

My opinion on tradition is that it should be something that's easily abandoned. Not that I feel that way about all of the traditions I follow myself, because many of them make me comfortable. But as I noted earlier, the world has always been changing, it will always be changing (until it experiences severe climate change by being enveloped by the sun when it goes through its death throes). Some of those changes I like, some of them I wish hadn't happened. Some of them I have caused, like you have (congratulations on the patent, even if it's a bit late for the career enhancement).

Actually, my opinion on the golden rule is that it's inadequate, since I know there are people who don't want to be done unto as I would prefer to be done unto. But that's what adds spice to our lives.

I recall the "Under God" addition to the pledge was inspired by the evil red menace, godless communists that they were, and was an attempt to show (at least ourselves) that we were above such things. But even though the red menace is no longer a threat and the fundamentalist theistic menace has become our primary focus, the phrase remains. Go figure. And I do remember (but just barely) reciting the pledge without the phrase. On the occasions when the pledge is said, I leave the phrase out, being silent for a second or so.

When it comes to demonstration of the higher power (the God in which "we" trust?), I would be far more satisfied with an engineering demonstration than a patent lawyer demonstration. I've only been doing patents for five years. I was an engineer for the previous twenty, and an engineering technician for about five years before that. I became an engineer because I discovered that I liked making things (have you seen the pictures of my laundry room and attic? How about my old VW race car?). I became a patent examiner because I needed a job with a secure pension.

When it comes to praying, the last thing I can remember praying for was some indication I was praying to the right god. From the response I got, it appears I was not.

[Shapley]

From the response I got, it appears I was not.

Perhaps you simply misinterpreted the response...

[barfle]

How does one interpret nothing perceivable?