Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site vaxb.calgary.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!ubc-vision!alberta!calgary!radford
From: radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Children, Hunger and School Lunches
Message-ID: <14@vaxb.calgary.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 15-Mar-86 15:44:40 EST
Article-I.D.: vaxb.14
Posted: Sat Mar 15 15:44:40 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 16-Mar-86 08:16:46 EST
References: <358@ihnet.UUCP> <28200625@inmet.UUCP> <363@ihnet.UUCP> <1029@whuxl.UUCP>
Organization: U. of Calgary, Calgary, Ab.
Lines: 18
Summary: How can the majority be poor?

In article <1029@whuxl.UUCP>, orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes:

> ...
> But for many poor children (who are incidentally the majority of
> the children in this country at this time) ...

This illustrates how ridiculous this debate can become. By what possible 
standard can the majority of the children in one of the richest countries
in the world be poor? I don't doubt that Sevener has read some study that
reached this conclusion, but its definition of "poor" must have been 
designed to ensure a scathing report decrying the lack of social programs
under Reagan...

Are these children poor compared to those in Bangladesh? If not, perhaps
it would be best to cease using words like "poor" that fail to communicate
anything but emotional bias.

     Radford Neal