Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 Tandy Xenix 02/17/86; site gilbbs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!qantel!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020
From: mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Children, Hunger and School Lunches
Message-ID: <101@gilbbs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 20-Mar-86 20:29:52 EST
Article-I.D.: gilbbs.101
Posted: Thu Mar 20 20:29:52 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Mar-86 23:05:18 EST
References: <358@ihnet.UUCP> <28200625@inmet.UUCP> <363@ihnet.UUCP> <810@well.UUCP>
Organization: Gil's Place, Santa Rosa CA
Lines: 83
Xref: lsuc net.politics:3837 net.politics.theory:1007

In article <810@well.UUCP>, rab@well.UUCP (Bob Bickford) writes:
> >    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.
> 
>    I thought the issue was wealth, not health.
> 
   Ah, so you then deny any relationship between health and wealth?

> > 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.
> > 
>    You are speaking here of *relative* poverty.  More later.
> 
  Damn straight!  More later is right!
> > > 
> > > 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.
> > 
>    "Poorness" is not a relative thing; it is capable of measure on a definite
> scale just like any other economic measure.  You may choose to disagree on
> the particulars of the measurement process but the fact remains it is
> measureable.  (The rest of the paragraph I have no argument with.)

   Poorness most certainly *IS* a relative thing.  You don't think so?  Go
on over to Bangladesh, find someone who qualifies as "wealthy" (not stinking
filthy rich, Rockefeller style), and bring them and their resources to this
nation.  See how wealthy they are then.

> 
> >    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.
> > 
>     I reiterate, poverty is objective, just like the rest of the world.
> Your characterization that we are somehow responsible for poverty because
> we have created wealth ourselves is typical of the leftist/socialist
> tactics of mis-information and deliberate falsehood.          :-|

   Poverty most certainly *IS* relative.  Unless the cost of food, shelter 
health care and clothing is the same between two cultures, the definition
of poverty cannot be the same.  Poverty is that attricute which limits
one's ability to provide for one's self the basic necessities.  As such, the
metric of poverty is inextricably tied to the economy of the culture in which
one resides.  To argue otherwise is to ignore reality.

> (BTW, I'm not a conservative.)
> 


   Oh, really?  Maybe not.  I'm not a "leftist/socialist" misinformer, either.
And yes, *WE* create much of the poverty of the world...We have not "created
welath for ourselves" out of a vacuum.  Check out world resource consumption
figures.  I don't have recent ones, but in the recent past, the United States
was using some 40% of world resources.  What percentage of the world population
do we support?  Removing those resources from the countries where theyare
found directly contributes to the poverty of those countries.

   We are not *SOLELY* responsibile for the poverty of the world, no.  We
cannot, however, abrogate the responsibility we do bear.

-- 

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

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! *)