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 well.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!hplabs!well!rab
From: rab@well.UUCP (Bob Bickford)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Children, Hunger and School Lunches
Message-ID: <810@well.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 20-Mar-86 05:13:29 EST
Article-I.D.: well.810
Posted: Thu Mar 20 05:13:29 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Mar-86 18:54:50 EST
References: <358@ihnet.UUCP> <28200625@inmet.UUCP> <363@ihnet.UUCP> <94@gilbbs.UUCP>
Organization: Whole Earth Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA
Lines: 57
Xref: lsuc net.politics:3822 net.politics.theory:1004

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 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.

   I thought the issue was wealth, not health.

> 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.

> > 
> > 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.)

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


-- 
       Robert Bickford     (rab@well.uucp)
================================================
|  I doubt if these are even my own opinions.  |
================================================