poli-sci@ucbvax.ARPA (12/05/84)
From: JoSH <JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Poli-Sci Digest Wed 5 Dec 84 Volume 4 Number 109
Contents: Slave Repatriation
Safety Nazis
Statistics by Phone
Suits by Larouche
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Monday, 3 Dec 1984 08:34-EST
From: sde@Mitre-Bedford
Subject: slaves,repatriation,liberation,etc.
JoSH,
Perhaps I misunderstand your usage, but when you refer to slaves being part
of the property "repatriated," I understand you to mean that they remained
slaves, yet in response to my comment about Sabbatical years, you state that
the Jubilee year freed them. Isn't that a contradiction of your original
statement?
Also, I have repeated been taught that even non-Hebrew slaves were encouraged
to accept conversion and thereby attain the freedom and other rights enjoyed
by native-born Israelites, so the distinction between Hebrew and non-Hebrew
slaves would appear not as clear, especially when one considers that a purely
cynical option would have been for a slave to ostensibly adopt Hebrew practice
just long enough to get free and leave the country. (I've never heard it
suggested that there was ever an Iron curtain around ancient Israel's borders
to prevent such actions.)
David (sde@mitre-bedford)
[Sorry, it never occurred to me that repatriation and liberation might
refer to different things. I don't think it does here. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 4 Dec 84 13:10:24 EST
From: DIETZ@RUTGERS.ARPA
Subject: Safety Nazis Strike Out at Edwards AFB
You probably saw on TV that test crash at Edwards AFB last weekend.
The antimisting kerosene, which was supposed to prevent a fireball
when the plane's wings were ripped, didn't work, so the FAA probably
won't be able to require its use. What I found interesting was the
cost/benefit analysis that came out afterwards. On average, requiring
the use of the additive would have cost $800 million/year, and saved
30 lives. I suspect the FAA was publicizing this test because it didn't
have a chance of getting the stuff required without public clamour.
[$800 million could save about 3,200 lives if spent on things like
highway modernization or increased ambulance availability. The rule
of thumb is $250K/life as the marginal funding level in many things
like that. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 4 Dec 1984 1327-PST
From: Richard M. King <DKING@KESTREL.ARPA>
Subject: Political polling by telephone
As I recall, Dewey was predicted to beat Truman by a poll taken
of telephone subscribers before an election. This was inaccurate because
the set of people with telephone service was not a cross sectin of the
voting population.
In 1984, practically everyone has a phone, so this is no longer a
problem. BUT
Pollsters dial numbers at random in order to get unlisted numbers.
I have two lines in my house - one for the people and one for the
modem. We have hunting (might as well) so we often don't remember not to
answer the modem line if it rings while the listed line is not busy. Last
election we were polled on that line.
That pollster had twice as high a probability of contacting me (and
similarly situated people) as of contacting a person with a single line.
They did NOT ask us whether we had two lines, which would have enabled them
to compensate for this.
Are pollsters asking for trouble?
If some poll gets a wierd result circa 1988 or 1992 when approximately
half the population has two lines, you heard it here first!
Dick
[Hmmm... I also got phone-polled, about a month before the election.
(I told them "None of the above.") Wonder how many other poli-sci'ers
were polled? --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 3 Dec 84 11:28 EST (Mon)
From: _Bob <Carter@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Subject: LaRouche Libel Suit
From: Larry Kolodney <UC.LKK%MIT-EECS at MIT-MC.ARPA>
Someone questioned the validity of the article I posted last week
from the GUARDIAN about the LaRouche libel suit against NBC.
Someone? Thanks, pal.
THE ECONOMIST
"An even rarer occurrence is for a jury to award damages against
the primary plaintiff rather than the media. Earlier this month,
a jury rejected Mr. Lyndon LaRouche's $150m libel suit against
NBC and ordered him, instead, to pay the network $3m in damages;
this award arose from a countersuit alleging that the followers
of Mr. LaRouche, who has run on several occasions as an
independent candidate for president, had harassed NBC.
Okay. I don't think "rare" is appropriate; counterclaims (not
"countersuits") are routine. Three million dollar awards are not
usual, but you can probably bet that it will be reduced on appeal.
_B
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------