poli-sci@ucbvax.ARPA (05/14/85)
From: JoSH <JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA> Poli-Sci Digest Tue 14 May 85 Volume 5 Number 19 Contents: Embargo Divestment Ages/driving Infant Mortality ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 8 May 85 20:43:34 pdt From: upstill%ucbdegas@Berkeley (Steve Upstill) Subject: Re: embargo and punishment [what's wrong with punishment?] -- JoSH paraphrased Well, I tend to think of punishment as a means, rather than an end. It's awfully satisfying, especially if you are powerful enough to resist retaliation, but in the conduct of mature nations, I expect it, at least nominally, to be directed toward some other goal, the specificker the better. Behaviorally, punishment is most effective when it is a specific (preferably predictable) response to a specific action, the better to establish a cause-and-effect relationship and thereby get the punishee to in future avoid the punishment by eschewing the cause. Is there something we expect the Sandinistas to DO, or are we just getting even for something? Steve U. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 May 85 09:42:00 PDT From: Richard Foy <foy@AEROSPACE.ARPA> Subject: Embargo I too would like to know the purpose of the embargo. It seems to me that it is most likely to be counterproductive. That is drive the Sandinistas closer to the Soviet Union instead of to get them to capitulate to us. I guess I also don't understand the purpose of punishment at least as it might be applied the Sandinistas and the embargo. ------------------------------ Date: 9 May 1985 09:28-PDT From: king@Kestrel.ARPA Subject: whose money is it, anyway? It must be common knowledge by now that many organizations, governmental or otherwise, are voting or deciding to disinvest PENSION FUNDS from companies doing business in South Africa. My question is, why is this legal? That money doesn't belong to the people making the decision to disinvest, but to the retirees (and soon-to-be-retirees (and not-so-soon-to-be-retirees)). Have there been any court tests of similar things? Did the late '60s - early '70s produce similar disinvestments? On the other hand, have any efforts been made to seek the consent of the owners of the money? Does anyone know of a case where the retirees have been polled and have responded that they would like disinvestment, even though their pension would be reduced (by the brokerage fees for the turnover, plus the presumably lower rate of return from the securities that the trustees rejected, as suboptimal, when they chose to invest in the now-blacklisted companies int he first place)? This is not to be construed as an opinion on whether disinvestment is a good or morally necessary position. I personally have not invested in companies too closely associated with SA for a long time (although I don't find, for example, IBM unacceptable); I don't like their policies, but I strongly don't like people using other people's money to further their goals, even where they coincide with mine. -dick [Personally, I never understood the rationale for divestment. I was under the impression that American companies doing business in SA treated blacks *better* than did the native companies; and surely any scheme which increased unemployment would hurt the blacks much worse than the Afrikaans. --JoSH] ------------------------------ Date: Thursday, 9 May 1985 00:05:05 EDT From: Hank.Walker@cmu-cs-unh.arpa Subject: lenient law enforcement I think the reason crimes like drunk driving weren't enforced too strictly in the past was that people had the reaction "Jeez, *I* could have been caught doing that" and go easy on the guilty. Now the true costs are being made clearer, so people are becoming less tolerant of this behavior. I believe that the odds of dying due to a drunk driver are something like 1% in your lifetime. Car crashes are the leading cause of death for young white males. As the above makes clear, laws do not operate in a vacuum, but as part of our social structure. They become ignored, irrelevant, or weakened, when enough people feel that violating them isn't a really bad thing, or that the penalties are out of proportion to the consequences. Other examples include possession of small quantities of dope, various sexual practices, and jaywalking. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Age restrictions/limits Date: 09 May 85 18:22:30 EDT (Thu) From: James M Galvin <galvin@UDel-Dewey.ARPA> I do not feel that age restrictions should be necessary. I agree that the penalties should be stiff enough to change the mind of anyone in their "right-mind" (this is probably a separate topic). But there are two problems I see, one of which has just been mentioned. How do you deal with diplomatic immunity; one hand washes the other and all that? Me, I have no problem with that. I can and have been a heavy. But that is not a realistic solution. Most people aren't. The second is how do you become a "good" person again? It bothers me a great deal when I can make a mistake, pay the penalty and be penalized for it forever. I have had this problem with the insurance on my car. Sure, when I first started driving I made a lot of mistakes. I even had one accident. But I have had a clean record since then (5+ years). But I had to stop owning a car because I couldn't afford the insurance. Last year I moved, to another state, and left my driving record behind. I was able to purchase a NEW car, and pay LESS for insurance than a used car in my previous state. This year I just turned 25 and my insurance rates dropped again. And that bothers me more than the high insurance rates because if I had been married I would have received this new LOW rate at that time. How is it being supported/supporting another person makes me more responsible than supporting myself, regardless of my driving record yet? I am not suggesting "wiping the slate clean", but I think a person also deserves a second chance. Whatever suggestions are made about "demonstrating a level of maturity" need to include an opportunity to repent. Everybody makes mistakes, unintentionally or otherwise. James M. Galvin University of Delaware Department of Computer and Information Sciences Newark, DE 19716 ARPA: galvin@udel-dewey CSNET: galvin%udel-dewey@csnet-relay UUCP: ...!harvard!galvin@udel-dewey ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 May 85 02:22:06 cdt Subject: Re: Poli-Sci Digest V5 #18: likely problem w/ tougher DWI laws From: ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx.sphinx!rkhs@Berkeley Please excuse any inconveniences or crudities in this reply--I'm completely new at this. I'd like to tell what my mother found on jury duty recently in Milwaukee, Wis. The two cases she was on were both drunk-driving, no accidents or injuries or anything, both cases of obvious drunkenness well beyond the law. You see, Milwaukee (or Wisconsin--not sure which) recently toughened up its laws in the current wave of such. So my mother found herself on the losing side in a combined 21-3 vote for *innocence* -- because after all nobody got hurt, and it's an awful lot to take away someone's license just for having a good time.... In other words, tougher laws could well go even less enforced. This *increases*the problem of contempt for the laws, the problems of police frustration and resulting negligence, and above all the actual rate of drunk driving. I don't see how we can worsen the situation easier than by passing laws nobody really believes in. (And the frustrating thing is--I *do*. But that's a minority view!) ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 1985 11:18-PDT From: king@Kestrel.ARPA Subject: infant mortality poll I will give individual answers, since there were so few and not many gave merely a direct answer. The names have been removed to protect anyone who feels (s)he needs it. The correct answer, given in the Wall Street Journal but verified by fifteen minutes of alminac research, is C>. The raw figures are 1980: 12.6, 1984:10.6 (deaths before 1 year old per thousand live births). ******************************************************** I guess 10% more your answer A. ******************************************************** An article a month or two ago in the New York Times (this is going strictly by memory) discussed infant mortality trends. Infant mortality has traditionally declined at an annual rate of something like 2% per year. However in recent years, the rate of descrease has fallen dramatically. Researchers are worried that some sort of plateau is being reached that will leave the US with mortality rates substantially higher than other developed countries. They believe that medical science is reaching its limits in reducing mortality, and that only changes in behavior, specifically reduced teenage pregnancy, can keep mortality declining. Other facts such as changes in child nutrition programs, weren't significantly affecting the figures yet, but might in the future. Based on this, I would say that the answer is close to C. I would believe slightly less than a 10% decline in infant mortality from 1980 to 1984. [the New York Times expects the infant mortality to decline at a constant rate forever? By the year 1995 more babies would have survived to age 1 than were born (Siamese twins, perhaps?)!] ************************************************************ As you probably know, I'm a Reagan fan, and so I'll bet the answer is (c). On the other hand, if all I went by is what I saw in the press, I'd say it was (a). ************************************************************ Well, I must admit I haven't heard specific press quotes about infant mortality, but I'm going to submit a guess answer anyway. I'll take "A> substantially greater". I guess this because Reagan's policies have generally meant more hardship for the poor, and I expect that's where we'd see the most infant mortality. I hope you publish your source(s) for the answer. I'd expect that much infant mortality is not well documented, particularly in poor families. Another question perhaps you can answer: how young must a child be to be an "infant"--- 1 month, 1 year,...? *********************************************************** My impression would deffinitly be A. *********************************************************** b. based on nothing. ------------------------------ End of POLI-SCI Digest - 30 - -------