Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!glacier!well!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020
From: mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Children, Hunger and School Lunches
Message-ID: <94@gilbbs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 18-Mar-86 15:42:59 EST
Article-I.D.: gilbbs.94
Posted: Tue Mar 18 15:42:59 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Mar-86 18:53:30 EST
References: <358@ihnet.UUCP> <28200625@inmet.UUCP> <363@ihnet.UUCP> <14@vaxb.calgary.UUCP>
Organization: Gil's Place, Santa Rosa CA
Lines: 46

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 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...

   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.

> 
> 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.

>      Radford Neal

-- 

====================================

Disclaimer:  I hereby disclaim any and all responsibility for disclaimers.

tom keller
{ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020

(* we may not be big, but we're small! *)