From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was: Re: Legalized Theft)
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:41:26 GMT

In <21466@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>In article <1992Sep4.183922.9000@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>> Isn't it kind of hypocritical of you to be asking me for references on
>> the abortion issue when you yourself REFUSE?  *YOU* are the one
>> demanding references all the time, John, but only when what someone
>> says doesn't accord with what you want to believe, apparently.

>Huh?

>I willingly provide references.  I do it all the time.  This is why I
>don't have a credibility problem.  That is why =I= provided two different
>references showing what fetal development occured at what date.  And in
>a moment I will provide a third.

So where are these CREDIBLE (not pro-life propaganda) references for
this claim that doctors are DAILY tossing live embryos into piles of
rags to smother, John?  You claimed that this was happening DAILY and
was WELL DOCUMENTED.  So let's hear from some (non-pro-life
propaganda) documents.

>>                                                                   I
>> told you the first place to go look.  Go check Grey's Anatomy and look
>> for when the cerebrum and cerebellum are formed.  When you come back
>> with that one, I'll send you off to check another one.  You will
>> quickly find how ridiculous your claims of readable human brainwaves
>> at 40 days gestational age are.

>Now, Fred, you said no such thing.  Because I keep a copy of Gray's anatomy
>(that's GRAY with an "A", not GREY with a "E".) on the shelf.  Next to the
>rest of my wife's biology books.

Well, John, I did TOO say such a thing (and I even spelled it "Gray's"
in the other note -- I love how you never correct spelling, grammar,
or typos, John).

>Now, turn to page 1215 in your Gray's Anatomy (1977 edition).  Read the
>section under "Third Week".  Elsewhere, I believe on page 1175, you will
>find more information about the development of the human brain.

>Look, if you want to play "Hide and Seek", I won't bother.  If you'd like
>to actually try coming up with some support for your claims, I assure you
>that Gray's won't support them.  Gray's is an ANATOMY book.  It doesn't say
>what works how and when.  It shows nice pictures of human brains at some
>small number of different intervals.  It does not show brainwave patterns
>associated with those periods.

Well, see my other note on the subject.  It doesn't HAVE to show
brainwave patterns.  If the parts of the brain AREN'T THERE, that will
show in an anatomy book (and it does).  If the parts of the brain
AREN'T THERE, then the brainwaves from them can't be there either, now
can they?

>> Let's look at those numbers, then.  Announced this morning (on
>> whatever network has the morning show with Bryan Gumbal on it - if you
>> can't figure it out from that, then you don't really want references
>> anyway; as I've been told, it doesn't have to be EASY to check -- just
>> possible): the percentage of people living in poverty in the United
>> States is now at the highest level since LBJ initiated the Great
>> Society.

>Oh.  If you can't find a book in a library given title, author, and
>ISBN number, you aren't even trying.  When I give references, I usually
>give at least two of the above.  If you ask I'll give all three, and I
>might even throw in the publisher.

BFD.  We're still waiting for this "well documented" reference.

>Now to answer the question at hand.

>What is the percentage of Americans who are elderly as compared to
>when Johnson was president?  What is the percentage of Americans who
>are elderly who are considered to be living in poverty despite having
>significantly more wealth than their younger counterparts?  What is
>the percentage of American children living in single parent homes
>now as compared to when Johnson was president?  What is the percentage
>of those children whose mothers receive child support from the fathers
>of those children and who child support payments aren't included in 
>the income of the mother because she didn't earn it and therefore she
>is in poverty?

You don't answer a question with a list of questions, John.  All the
preceding is just smoke and mirrors to try to cover up what is
actually going on.  Does ANY reputable organization, liberal OR
conservative, dispute that the trend is toward a greater number of
REAL POOR?  Oh, a few of the ultra-conservative think tanks dispute
the actual numbers, but that's just niggling.  Do any of them disupute
the TREND?  No.  Despite all the complaints such as those you level
above, does anyone really think that the numbers are THAT far off the
mark?  No.  [Source: Washington Week in Review, last Friday.]

>You're being played for a sucker.  MANY of the people in "poverty" are
>far richer than I am, and with a college degree and significant
>experience as a programmer, I'm far from "poor".

You're the sucker, John.  You'll believe any conservative apologia
that they come up with for why things aren't really as bad as they
seem.  Well, they are, and they're going to keep getting worse until
we do something to change directions.


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton