poli-sci@ucbvax.ARPA (12/21/84)
From: JoSH <JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Poli-Sci Digest Fri 21 Dec 84 Volume 4 Number 111
Contents: Two Candidates For New Topics
Wealth and Poverty
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue 18 Dec 84 11:40:07-PST
From: Terry C. Savage <TCS@USC-ECL.ARPA>
Subject: Designer Genes
An interesting topic for discussion: custom organisms. If research
with recombinant DNA continues its current rate of success, we will
soon (in an evolutionary sense) be able to design organisms with
almost any characteristics we want. What are the moral implications
of this? What restrictions, if any should be placed on the
use of these techniques? Our legal/moral systems make a big
distinction between animals and humans. What if that distinction
becomes entirely arbitrary? Some examples:
1) A great assembly line/janitorial beast might be somthing with two
human hands, a couple of octopus tentacles, and the intelligence of,
say, a dog. What is the legal/moral status of this beast?
2) Closer to home, what about "humans" that have
reduced intellects/emotions/"souls" a la Brave
New World?
In the not-too-distant future (20-50 years), it will be possible to
have a continuous spectrum of organisms from virus and other basic
things through humans, and more advanced things. It will be necessary
to define "humans" and "rights" in more operational terms, or
accept the fact that the distinctions and rights are entirely
arbitrary.
Anyone care to take a stab at defining "human", given these
conditions?
TCS
------------------------------
Date: Tue 18 Dec 84 22:44:40-EST
From: FIRTH@TL-20B.ARPA
Subject: New Topic
May I raise a new topic for the winter solstice?
Exhibit A: US News & Word Report, 1984 December 24, p 65
TAX SHELTERS. Taxpayers claiming deductions for investments
in tax shelters suspected of being abusive will find their
refunds withheld until the Internal Revenue Service decides
whether the shelter deductions are valid.
Exhibit B: Constitution of the United States of America, Amendments,
Article V
No person ... shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; ...
Can these two exhibits be reconciled? Comments, please
Robert Firth
[I have an almost infinite faith in the ability of the Supreme Court
to reconcile them... The Court has demonstrated a willingness to
interpret laws to mean exactly the opposite of the literal meaning
of the words of the statute, *explicitly admitting this*, in order
to meet what they consider the "spirit" of the law. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 84 20:34:13 est
From: Larry Kolodney <lkk@mit-eddie>
Subject: poverty stats.
THe following is resent from "another network".
-larry
From: glosser@ut-ngp.UUCP (glosser)
Subject: Re: A statistic on poverty
Date: Sat, 15-Dec-84 13:26:30 EST
In a recent article Alien (alien@gcc-opus) was trying to make
the claim that entitlement programs (especially food stamps)
where helping as far as the war on poverty is concerned. I will
agree with him in that sense, because without entitlements things
would be worse. However, when he makes the following statement about
including benefits (food stamps, etc.) when determining who is
below the poverty level (8.8% of the population below the
poverty level if benefits are included, 22% if not.) he shows
a great misunderstanding of what the issues are vis a vis the
incidence of poverty in this country:
>What does this mean?
>
>First, Poverty in the US is not as bad of a problem as
>some people would want you to believe. Clearly, 8.5% is
>not as bad as 22%. (Did you ever stop to wonder where
>those 22% were? I mean, if there were that many, wouldn't
>you know a lot of them?)
First, it might enlighten people to see what the %'s of people
below the poverty level have been from 1970 through 1982 for the
total population as well as the white and black population:
% of Persons Below the Poverty Level
(source Economic Report of the President - 1984 Page 252)
Year Total White Black
1970 12.6 9.9 33.5
1971 12.5 9.9 32.5
1972 11.9 9.0 33.8
1973 11.1 8.4 31.4
1974 11.2 8.6 30.3
1975 12.3 9.7 31.3
1976 11.8 9.1 31.1
1977 11.6 8.9 31.3
1978 11.4 8.7 30.6
1979 11.7 9.0 31.0
1980 13.0 10.2 32.5
1981 14.0 11.1 34.2
1982 15.0 12.0 35.6
Also, consider the following data for families below the poverty
line. (source Economic Report of the President - 1984 Page 252)
Where:
Total = Total % of all families in the USA
Female = Total % of all Female headed families in the USA
White = Total % of all White families in the USA
White F. = Total % of all White Female headed families in the USA
Black = Total % of all Black families in the USA
Black F. Total % of all Black Female headed families in the USA
% of Families Below the Poverty Line
Year Total Female White White F. Black Black F.
1970 10.1 32.5 8.0 25.0 29.5 54.3
1971 10.0 33.9 7.9 26.5 28.8 53.5
1972 9.3 32.7 7.1 24.3 29.0 53.3
1973 8.8 32.2 6.6 24.5 28.1 52.7
1974 8.8 32.1 6.8 24.8 26.9 52.2
1975 9.7 32.5 7.7 25.9 27.1 50.1
1976 9.4 33.0 7.1 25.2 27.9 52.2
1977 9.3 31.7 7.0 24.0 28.2 51.0
1978 9.1 31.4 6.9 23.5 27.5 50.6
1979 9.2 30.4 6.9 22.3 27.8 49.4
1980 10.3 32.7 8.0 25.7 28.9 49.4
1981 11.2 34.6 8.8 27.4 30.8 52.9
1982 12.2 36.3 9.6 27.9 33.0 56.2
>From the above, issues such as what the poverty incidence
would be without food stamps, horror stories of people
spending all their entitlement money on soft drinks and hard
liquor, etc. detract from what I consider to be one of the main
issue associated with poverty in this country: The incidence
of poverty shows that RACISM and SEXISM is alive and well in
the United States!
In other words, when: roughly one out of two black female
headed households are below the poverty line; three times
as many female headed households as compared to male headed
households are below the poverty line (this also means three
out of ten female headed households as well); as well as three
tenths of the black population living below the poverty level,
something is seriously wrong!
Stuart M. Glosser
[This is a stupid, egregious, self-indulgent fallacy, which has been
paraded as social dogma for so long that it has come to be considered
proof of it merely to repeat it. I am referring to the assumption
that there is a causal link between prejudice and a low level of
economic performance for a racial (or other) group. This particular
idiocy has been responsible for so much misdirected crusading
that I feel duty-bound to call its name and point the finger of
shame wherever I see it. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 19 December 1984 23:04-EST
From: Steven A. Swernofsky <SASW @ MIT-MC>
Subject: wealth and poverty
Thank you for posting the statistics on wealth distribution, Larry.
Would you ask your sources to answer a question for me? I have been
told that 80% of all people with incomes above $50,000 are registered
Democrats. Is this true? Or is it just someone's disinformation?
-- Steve
[ Moderator -- Please don't edit or append to this message. Thanx. ]
$$
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------