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
Subject: Re: Children, Hunger and School Lunches (and infant mortality)
Message-ID: <32@vaxb.calgary.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 23-Mar-86 17:27:37 EST
Article-I.D.: vaxb.32
Posted: Sun Mar 23 17:27:37 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 24-Mar-86 04:04:21 EST
References: <358@ihnet.UUCP> <28200625@inmet.UUCP> <363@ihnet.UUCP> <94@gilbbs.UUCP>
Organization: U. of Calgary, Calgary, Ab.
Lines: 52

In article <94@gilbbs.UUCP>, mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) writes:
> In article <14@vaxb.calgary.UUCP>, radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) writes:
> >  By what possible 
> > standard can the majority of the children in one of the richest countries
> > in the world be poor? ... 
> 
>    I suggest that you look up the statistics on infant mortality in the 
> world.  The U.S. is currently running well behind several well developed,
> highly progressive nations such as Singapore and Thailand.  So much for the
> effects of being a "citizen" of one of the wealthiest nations on earth.  You
> conveniently fail to note that by far the *VAST* majority of the wealth in 
> this nation is owned and controlled by a very few people.  The wealth of the
> nation isn't in question.  The poverty of a very large segment of our population
> is.

I've heard these claims about US infant mortality a number of times in the
past. So about six months ago when I happened to run across the figures, I
took some notice of them. As I recall, the US infant mortality figures are
quite unremarkable - in the middle of the pack for rich countries. They are
considerably lower than those of the USSR. I don't remember what Singapore
and Thailand's were.

I'll try to find the exact figures and post them.

> > 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.
> 
>    Let's face it, "poorness" as an attribute is a relative thing.  It is not
> in any way reasonable to compare the material wealth of a "poor" family to
> that of a family in Bangladesh, and then conclude that the "poor" family is
> in fact well off.  This is typical of the new conservative tactics of 
> mis-information and deliberate falsehood.
> 
>    Poverty must be judged in terms of the surroundings in which it is
> discovered.  Because we are *NOT* a global community, and because to some
> extent the poverty of other portions of the world are our direct responsibility,
> > 
> we must view our poor in terms of our own wealth, not that of others.

Just because one group of people increases their own wealth (through their
own efforts) does not make them evil because they are now better off than
other people. Of course, this is not entirely the situation in the US. Some
of the unequal distribution is due to unjust factors which I would certainly
support eliminating. An example is the regressive "Social Security" tax.

Your last paragraph is incomprehensible. Are you saying we aren't responsible
for the rest of the world or that we are? You can't have it both ways. If
we are, surely helping Bangladesh is higher priority than the rather well-off
poor in the US? If not, why? Aren't they human? 

     Radford Neal