Right or left why homeless ?

[darth tater]

Okay Darth Tater' date=' here you go:

 

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/main_nowayhome_causes.html

 

The above Canadian link gives stats on homeless youth. Among the highlights are young people leaving home because of sexual abuse. These are 40% of homeless girls and 19% of homeless boys.

 

Many of these young people leave home or feel forced to leave due to physical abuse: 59% of girls and 39% of boys.

 

Over twice as many homeless youths in this study are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered: 20-20%.[/quote']

 

While it is an interesting news story and fullfills a need to cover up the white space in the newspaper, it is hardly a scientific study.

 

I note a referrence to "experts" on homelessness, without any clarification as to how they became experts, and Canada being somewhat more socialistic than the US, I would suspect a strong bias toward the concept that any failure of the individual is a failure of the state.

 

Further, I am referring to homeless people in the US and not all of the homeless peoples of the world, although I suppose that Canada could be considered close enough to the US to be a fair comparison.

 

I only mention this to head off any citations of third world countries in which most of the population is homeless.

 

I grant that there are people in the US who are homeless and who would really really like to have a normal home, but they just have had enough bad luck that it is impossible for them. For these people, something can be done and indeed in my area, something is being done.

 

There are many others, perhaps a majority, who are homeless simply because they do not want it bad enough to make the necessary effort to achieve that goal. After all, sacrificing 8 hour a day for some 45 years is a significent sacrifice. In short, it is easier for them to drift in the wind like a thistel seed and exist on the handouts of others.

 

Now, this is just my opinion and has no more scientific value than the article that you posted, but the reality is that there are many many people who either cannot be helped, or who do not want to be helped.

 

They are living the lifestyle that suits them and they don't want it changed.

[Phi for All]

Yeah well you see I got the impression that you had called them

'lazy' and 'opporunistic'. And I was pointintg out there were other

possibilities' date=' that you did not appear to have considered.[/quote']I am definitely busted here.

 

It was a judgement by me. I also should have said "many" instead of "far more". I spent too much time trying to skirt the details of what I saw way back then and not enough on exactly what I was saying.

 

Mea culpa.

[Coral Rhedd]

I live in a smaller city, I'm not exposed to many homeless people, and I am relatively young and unexperienced. Are most homeless people without families or is it common to have whole families that are homeless?

 

It is not at all to have whole families that are homeless. The director of the nonreligious homeless shelter here tells me that families make up about one fifth of the people in the shelter.

 

Sometimes it is as simple as the rent getting raised to the point where they cannot afford it. Often it is mothers with their children who have fled an abusive relationship. Often it is illness that has resulted in homelessness. Some families even lose home that they own because they could not pay medical bills and the hospital forces them into court. Once a judgment goes against them, their property can be sold to pay bills.

[Skye]

Not trying to put any words in your mouth. It's just that voluntary help for the homeless is a pretty undebatable issue. People will either volunteer to help' date=' or they will not. You can encourage more of it, but there's nothing really there to debate.

 

So the issue really is whether the government should or should not provide entitlements, and on what basis they should be provided. And since those resources are acquired from the citizens on a non-voluntary basis, they are backed by force.

 

Is that good, or bad?[/quote']

Generally it's good, because of the eminently charitable nature of people when they are spending other peoples' money.

 

If you mean should governments forcibly control the people? Force is the ultimate source of power, and power dictates the relationships of people. Unless the state power is backed by force it is inevitably overthrown by the more forceful. Essentially the state is the most powerful, most capable of applying force. It is not a matter of whether the state should, but rather of that the state does so in order to exist.

 

All very melodramatic you see.

[husmusen]

Reply to pangloss

"So the issue really is whether the government should or should not

provide entitlements, and on what basis they should be provided.

And since those resources are acquired from the citizens on a

non-voluntary basis, they are backed by force.

 

Is that good, or bad?"

 

Well in a free country I can publicly advocate for the

government to spend money on anything I choose, ofcourse if it's

just me advocating it probably wont get very far.

 

In democracy if the citizens don't like what the government is

doing, they can dismiss that government. Ultimate force rests

(in theory)with the citizen.

 

As for 'is the use of taxpayer money to help the homeless a good or

bad thing'.

 

My response to that is that it's at least as good as public

hospitals, public roads and other activities undertaken for the

commongood or(in .au) the commonwealth.

I could also argue that homeless relief defends a country from

internal damage, and armed forces protect a country from external

threats, if it's good for tax dollars to pay for one then it's good

for tax dollars to pay for the other.

 

Finally I would argue that that 'choice' may be a false one.

The choice may be 'how you pay for homelessness?' not 'if you pay?'

 

In which case the state should provide homeless relief, even

based on purely mercantile arguments, because it's the cheapest

entry point.

 

Cheers

 

Reply to Phi for all:

 

I am definitely busted here.

 

It was a judgement by me. I also should have said "many" instead of

"far more". I spent too much time trying to skirt the details of

what I saw way back then and not enough on exactly what I was

saying.

 

Mea culpa.

 

Happens to the best of us.

 

Cheers.

[Kylonicus]

The underlying problem of homelessness is(I think) usually some sort of neurological deficiet.

 

If we used NOGO-A antibody, progesterone, and melatonin, we could cure the majority of neurological deficiets, and those we couldn't we could simply provides homes for with the left over excess funds.

 

If everybody could be rehabilitated and put back on their feet, then we wouldn't have to worry about people being homeless anymore.

[husmusen]

Hi Darth,

I couldn't help spotting your question

 

Do you know of a society that returns more wealth to the working

class than ours does?

 

In order of best to worst,

Norway, How'd they beat us?

Finland,

Sweden,

Netherlands,

Germany,

Canada,

France,

United states of America,

United kingdom,

Australia.

 

No data available for Eight other countries includes

Denmark, Japan, Iceland, Italy, New Zealand, Ireland, Belgium and Spain.

 

These are from Table 8.11 on Page 142 of "How Australia

Compares" By Gittens,Tiffen et al.

They are absolute poverty rates, in relative poverty you come last,

as you do in the UN human poverty index.

I picked the best light for the US.

 

Their data Source for 8.11 is the: UNDP, Human Development Report 2002, p160.

 

Cheers Darth.

 

P.S, the full table.

 

Table 8.11: Matrial poverty rates.

% of population with income rates below $11USD Per Person Per day,1995.

 

Norway 4%

Finland 5%

Sweden 6%

Netherlands 7%

Germany 7%

Canada 7%

France 10%

United States 14%

United kingdom 16%

Australia 18%

 

*no data for eight othr countries.

[Pangloss]

Okay. So we're not talking about charity. We're talking about state-mandated welfare.

 

Why do people see this as the same thing?

 

This thread started out talking about the problems of the homeless. That's an important problem, I agree. I also happen to think that a limited amount of welfare is good for society. Helping people when they're down is good for ALL of us. A safety net is a good thing.

 

But here's the thing: The implication of this thread is that we don't do enough. Now I agree that we don't do enough in general as a society -- we can always do more. What I resist is the implication that we aren't doing enough mandated welfare. That is a position which, in my opinion, is born out of ignorance, bolstered by political correctness.

 

Let's take a look at the US budget for 2005, shall we?

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_process

 

Function 	Title 	FY 20051
050 	National Defense 	423,098
150 	International Affairs 	29,569
250 	General Science, Space and Technology 	24,459
270 	Energy 	1,883
300 	Natural Resources and Environment 	30,286
350 	Agriculture 	22,353
370 	Commerce and Housing Credit 	8,092
400 	Transportation 	69,494
450 	Community and Regional Development 	12,949
500 	Education, Training, Employment and Social Services 	91,817
550 	Health 	248,780
570 	Medicare 	293,574
600 	Income Security 	342,324
650 	Social Security 	516,457
700 	Veterans Benefits and Services 	65,444
750 	Administration of Justice 	40,781
800 	General Government 	19,392
900 	Net Interest 	177,909
920 	Allowances 	(798)
950 	Undistributed Offsetting Receipts 	(63,108)
Total: 	2,354,755

 

Out of that $2.35 trillion, it's pretty obvious that over $1.6 trillion is being spent on welfare and entitlements. That's 68% folks.

 

And that $1.6 trillion is probably three or four times what any other nation on earth spends on welfare and entitlements. (In fact I believe that's more than the entire budget of any other nation.)

 

So.

 

Why do we need to spend more? What evidence do you have that spending more money on welfare and entitlements will bring about a decline in homelessness?

 

Make your case. I'm all ears.

[husmusen]

Helping people when they're down is good for ALL of us. A safety net is a good thing.

 

On this then we agree.

 

This thread started out talking about the problems of the homeless. That's an important problem, I agree. I also happen to think that a limited amount of welfare is good for society. Helping people when they're down is good for ALL of us. A safety net is a good thing.

 

But here's the thing: The implication of this thread is that we don't do enough. Now I agree that we don't do enough in general as a society -- we can always do more. What I resist is the implication that we aren't doing enough mandated welfare. That is a position which, in my opinion, is born out of ignorance, bolstered by political correctness.

 

Let's take a look at the US budget for 2005, shall we?

 

Out of that $2.35 trillion, it's pretty obvious that over $1.6 trillion is being spent on welfare and entitlements. That's 68% folks.

 

And that $1.6 trillion is probably three or four times what any other nation on earth spends on welfare and entitlements. (In fact I believe that's more than the entire budget of any other nation.)

 

So.

 

Why do we need to spend more? What evidence do you have that spending more money on welfare and entitlements will bring about a decline in homelessness?

 

Make your case. I'm all ears.

 

Fair enough,

1) I never said Spend more money.

That may be one solution, but if you are already spending lots of

money, it may be that the money is going missing, going to

the wrong people(i.e. not the programs targets), or that what you are

doing is not helping in which case the solution is not to stop and

spend the money on something different, like say more free stuff for

sitting members of parliament, but to study what went wrong, and reimplement with fixes.

 

If I was the guy running the U.S. I would send people to every state in the world who were getting better outcomes with less money and be asking several questions, 'what are the essential differances that are causing that?' and 'Would changing our system effect a similar result?'

 

Having knowledge and options never hurt a country.

 

Cheers

[Coral Rhedd]

The underlying problem of homelessness is(I think) usually some sort of neurological deficiet.

 

If we used NOGO-A antibody' date=' progesterone, and melatonin, we could cure the majority of neurological deficiets, and those we couldn't we could simply provides homes for with the left over excess funds.

 

If everybody could be rehabilitated and put back on their feet, then we wouldn't have to worry about people being homeless anymore.[/quote']

 

Could you be more specific? What sort of neurological deficit are you referring to?

 

Do you think overcoming this neurological deficit would trump market forces?

[Coral Rhedd]

I am not so cheered about my tax money being spent on the war in Iraq. I oppose that war. That tax money is taken from me forcibly to kill people I don't think need to be killed. That notion of force cuts both ways. If you want to eliminate all government force, the only option is anarchy.

[Pangloss]

I was opposed to the war as well, and voted against the administration (after supporting Bush in 2000). But that's the breaks in democracy -- you voice your opinion and then you takes your chances. If the results are not to your liking one year, hang around a while. They have a funny way (at least in my country) of working out pretty well over the long haul.

 

I don't want to eliminate all government force, I just want people to get the stars out of their eyes without losing their interest in having good government. If we can improve the homeless situation without totally solving it or further compromising citizen's rights, then we should do that. If we can reduce the taxpayer burden without increasing homelessness, we should do that.

 

I'm a big believer in compromise. I think it's something we've forgotten how to do in this country, very much to our detriment. It's when we forget how to compromise that our worst behavior comes out.

 

This thread is a great example of how discussions start out on perfectly reasonable grounds and then stampede straight for the use of force to solve the problem. It's a horrible rut we've fallen into -- throwing money that doesn't belong to us at problems that we know full well cannot be solved that way. The ideological conviction that this will work is born out of a lack of respect for the source of that money, and it is as much an ideological conviction as the opposing notion that the homeless should be ignored.

 

The truth, and the solution, are somewhere in between.

[darth tater]

Hi Darth' date='

I couldn't help spotting your question

 

 

 

In order of best to worst,

Norway, How'd they beat us?

Finland,

Sweden,

Netherlands,

Germany,

Canada,

France,

United states of America,

United kingdom,

Australia.

 

No data available for Eight other countries includes

Denmark, Japan, Iceland, Italy, New Zealand, Ireland, Belgium and Spain.

 

These are from Table 8.11 on Page 142 of "How Australia

Compares" By Gittens,Tiffen et al.

They are absolute poverty rates, in relative poverty you come last,

as you do in the UN human poverty index.

I picked the best light for the US.

 

Their data Source for 8.11 is the: UNDP, Human Development Report 2002, p160.

 

Cheers Darth.

 

P.S, the full table.[/quote']

 

 

My question was what country returns more to the working class of people, not what country provides the most benefit to the welfare class.

 

Also, could you source your data so that I can look at the methodology used to assemble it as well as signs of collectivist bias?

[darth tater]

I am not so cheered about my tax money being spent on the war in Iraq. I oppose that war. That tax money is taken from me forcibly to kill people I don't think need to be killed. That notion of force cuts both ways. If you want to eliminate all government force, the only option is anarchy.

 

You know, there are many in the US today who feel the same way about abortion.

[husmusen]

Coral Rhedd:

I am eager for your posting of your evidence.

Darth : Well I think that the evidence is in the success ratio in

America. Do you know of a society that returns more wealth to

the working class than ours does?

 

husmusen: (whole list of countries with lower poverty than U.S.)

 

My question was what country returns more to the working class of

people, not what country provides the most benefit to the welfare

class.

[/Quote]

 

So you start by saying it's the homelesses own fault if they are poor,

then, when asked for evidence, you claim the 'succes ratio' proves it.

You then define this as, money directed to the 'working class', that is people

who are able bodied and can work and not the 'welfare class', that is presumably people in need of assistance.

 

Your argument now seems to run counter to logic.

I would suggest that in countries like Sweden etc, where the government makes tools and services available to help people rebuild their lives when a crisis strikes, it would be more reasonable to argue it was someones own fault, than in a country where such tools are(according to you) less available than in any other country because the money is redirected to the healthy, working and well off.

 

Also, could you source your data so that I can look at the methodology

used to assemble it as well as signs of collectivist bias?

[/Quote]

 

I'm somewhat surprised that you quoted my sourcing in your own quote and yet seem ignorant of this as you ask me for my source?

 

Here it is again,

These are from Table 8.11 on Page 142 of "How Australia

Compares" By Gittens,Tiffen et al. Amazon have a link.

They are absolute poverty rates, in relative poverty you come last,

as you do in the UN human poverty index. <-- The type of data shown.

I picked the best light for the US. <-- The other two had it bottom.

 

Their data Source for 8.11 is the: UNDP, Human Development Report 2002, p160 <-- This is the source survey that Tiffen and Gittens used for this

table(and accompanying discussion article) when writing their book.

[/Quote]

[darth tater]

husmusen: (whole list of countries with lower poverty than U.S.)

 

Yes, but what is defined as "poverty level" in the countries cited?

 

 

So you start by saying it's the homelesses own fault if they are poor,

then, when asked for evidence, you claim the 'succes ratio' proves it.

You then define this as, money directed to the 'working class', that is people

who are able bodied and can work and not the 'welfare class', that is presumably people in need of assistance.

 

I said in many cases that is the reason that people are homeless, and it is. I would not generalize it to imply that that was the case in all cases.

Your argument now seems to run counter to logic.

I would suggest that in countries like Sweden etc, where the government makes tools and services available to help people rebuild their lives when a crisis strikes, it would be more reasonable to argue it was someones own fault, than in a country where such tools are(according to you) less available than in any other country because the money is redirected to the healthy, working and well off.

 

Could you be a little more clear here? I have trouble understanding what you are getting at. What do you suggest? That the working class should be forced to give up the fruits of their labors so that someone who refused to accept responsibility for his own housing could be housed at the expense of the tax payer?

 

 

I'm somewhat surprised that you quoted my sourcing in your own quote and yet seem ignorant of this as you ask me for my source?

 

Here it is again,

 

Perhaps I should have said "link?"

[husmusen]

Darth:

 

Yes, but what is defined as "poverty level" in the countries cited?

 

From Page 143 "How Australia Compares" by Rod Tiffen and Ross Gittens.

Table 8.11 attempts to measure and compare absolute poverty in

thye selected countries. It shows the proportion in each country

that cannot afford to buy each day, the same basket of goods and

services that in the United States woudl cost $US11(In other words

it takes into account the US dolalrs differing purchasing power in

different countries). It can be seen that absolute poverty is

highest in the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom.

[/Quote]

 

Darth:

Could you be a little more clear here? I have trouble understanding

what you are getting at. What do you suggest? That the working class

should be forced to give up the fruits of their labors so that

someone who refused to accept responsibility for his own housing

could be housed at the expense of the tax payer?

 

No, I am suggesting that if designed appropriately, schemes that

allow the poor to help themselves, are used by the poor, but that

bludgers don't tend to use them as they require effort.

E.g. Australias HECS scheme, this allows a student to put his

educational fees on the government tab, they are then reclaimed

via that fearsome debt collector, the Australian Taxation Office

once the student has graduated and got a job.

Better qualified = More money for graduate. More money for the .gov.

WIN-WIN.

 

As for shelter, yes I think that's a basic right, just as if a person

collapsed on the street I wouldn't ask questions about his character

before calling an ambulance. I think that is a good use of my tax

dollars and I vote accordingly. If a party thinks otherwise it's

a democracy they can add it to their platform.

 

Again, if someone is suffering from severe psychosis, (at least 30%

of the homeless), it's not a case of refusal to house themselves

but of inability.

 

And many homeless people have *paid* tax, before

their lives went sour. Why should they be denied aid they have,

in effect, paid for?

 

You seem to me to treat 'working class' as 'working caste' and it's

a lot more fluid than that.

 

Cheers

[husmusen]

Now regarding Darths query about online sources,

 

I'm glad you asked as I've foiund a wealth of new data sources.

 

1) If all else fails the UN would probably send you the report if

you wrote a letter and asked them nicely.

(Including your debit card details would probably help )

Just kidding.

 

2) I have done a quick search, (Website was designed by committee )

 

http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/index_indicators.cfm

It's on this page somewhere.

 

or you can use the dynamic page

http://cfapp2.undp.org/hdr/statistics/data/rc_select.cfm

 

In STEP 2 its 'Human and income poverty OECD ....'

and then below that in the box marked indicators its

'population living below $11 ...'

 

Be sure to select the rich OECD countries in step 1.

 

Cheers.

 

Edit: Upon reaching his 50, husmusen raises his bat and acknowledges the

polite applause of the crowd as the bowler returns to his crease.

[darth tater]

 

No' date=' I am suggesting that if designed appropriately, schemes that

allow the poor to help themselves, are used by the poor, but that

bludgers don't tend to use them as they require effort.

E.g. Australias HECS scheme, this allows a student to put his

educational fees on the government tab, they are then reclaimed

via that fearsome debt collector, the Australian Taxation Office

once the student has graduated and got a job.

Better qualified = More money for graduate. More money for the .gov.

WIN-WIN.

[/quote']

 

I wold vote for that.

 

As for shelter, yes I think that's a basic right, just as if a person

collapsed on the street I wouldn't ask questions about his character

before calling an ambulance. I think that is a good use of my tax

dollars and I vote accordingly. If a party thinks otherwise it's

a democracy they can add it to their platform.

 

Again, if someone is suffering from severe psychosis, (at least 30%

of the homeless), it's not a case of refusal to house themselves

but of inability.

 

And many homeless people have *paid* tax, before

their lives went sour. Why should they be denied aid they have,

in effect, paid for?

 

You seem to me to treat 'working class' as 'working caste' and it's

a lot more fluid than that.

 

Cheers

 

I would put someone into a hospital also if he collapsed on the street. But that is a good long ways from providing permanent housing for anyone who is willing to claim that he can't provide for himself.

 

If the test is simply the fact that a person doesn't have a home and the fix is for the government to provide one, then you will find a lot of people who suddenly "can't" provide for their own housing.

 

As to the classVcaste statement, you will need to elaborate on that one.

 

I feel that if one works, he is entitled to reatin the fruits of his labor to dispose of as he sees fit. That is why I am opposed to "the government" stepping in to dry every tear and sooth every bump in the road--you see, I happen to know wher government gets it's money.

[darth tater]

Now regarding Darths query about online sources' date='

 

I'm glad you asked as I've foiund a wealth of new data sources.

 

1) If all else fails the UN would probably send you the report if

you wrote a letter and asked them nicely.

(Including your debit card details would probably help )

Just kidding.

 

2) I have done a quick search, (Website was designed by committee )

 

http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/index_indicators.cfm

It's on this page somewhere.

 

or you can use the dynamic page

http://cfapp2.undp.org/hdr/statistics/data/rc_select.cfm

 

In STEP 2 its 'Human and income poverty OECD ....'

and then below that in the box marked indicators its

'population living below $11 ...'

 

Be sure to select the rich OECD countries in step 1.

 

Cheers.

 

Edit: Upon reaching his 50, husmusen raises his bat and acknowledges the

polite applause of the crowd as the bowler returns to his crease.

 

 

Well OK, but as I indicated earlier, when I entered the discussion, my comments were directed to the so-called "homeless" here in the US and not the truely homeless in the under developed countries of the world.

 

There is no logical comparison between the homeless in Sudan and the homeless in the US, so please, lets keep this within the parameters that we, or at least I, started with.

 

The links that you provided were about what I expected, a web site with an agenda. It is not a government entity, as they themselves say in their "about us" page and I was unable to acertain anything about the methodology employed in their reports.

 

I am prepared to dismiss it as another attempt to make an opinion look like a scientific study.

[Coral Rhedd]

Tater, how many homeless people do you have coffee with?

[husmusen]

darth:

I would vote for that.

 

Cool, write and tell your congressman, as he has probably

not heard of it but it's an excellent scheme. There is hope yet.

 

Darth:

I would put someone into a hospital also if he collapsed on the

street.

But that is a good long ways from providing permanent housing for

anyone who is willing to claim that he can't provide for himself.

 

First I was thinking more of emergency shelter, a bunk and a

bowl of oatmeal porridge and kasha, I can start

giving consideration to permanent housing when emergency housing

is not in crisis.

 

Regarding the links comments,

I don't know where you got Sudan from?

Did you select the 'OECD countries' on TAB 1?

You need to as it defaults to the poor countries, but the OECD

countries are there as well.

 

The links that you provided were about what I expected,

a web site with an agenda.

 

Show me a human being, club, organisation, think tank, NGO,

that doesn't have an agenda? The Australian Nurses Federation for e.g.

has a ton of agendas, but falsifying research is not one of them.

 

 

I am prepared to dismiss it as another attempt to make an

opinion look like a scientific study.

One can lead horses to water ...

 

I find the survey credible as it's

a) A UN body and there are plenty of right wing think tanks around the

world that would plaster them if they faked stuff.

b) It's been released as part of a book that was sent around for

fact checking before publication.

No data source is perfect or 100% sure, but I think this one is

pretty armoured.

 

But it's a free country, if you are that bothered about how the

survey was done email their chief library officer and ask him/her.

or Email the publishers, (you can get them of amazon).

 

Cheers.

[husmusen]

Hey Coral,

 

Just out of interest have you read Bryce Courtneys, Matthew Flinders Cat?

[darth tater]

Tater, how many homeless people do you have coffee with?

 

A better question would be, "how many homeless people have I bought lunch for?"

 

The answer is "many."

 

Do I personally know anyone who is homeless? yes. Most of them have nothing wrong with them, they are living in the land of opportunity and they would simply rather whine about what what someone else is not doing for them rather than doing anything to help themselves.

[darth tater]

darth:

 

 

Cool' date=' write and tell your congressman, as he has probably

not heard of it but it's an excellent scheme. There is hope yet.

 

[/quote']

 

How do you know that my congressperson is a "he?"

 

First I was thinking more of emergency shelter, a bunk and a

bowl of oatmeal porridge and kasha, I can start

giving consideration to permanent housing when emergency housing

is not in crisis.

 

Well you said "collapsed on the street." I took it that there would be a medical problem. If someone collapsed on the street and his problem was not medical, I too would attempt to ascertain why he collapsed, but once I found that he was healthy and lucid and capable of being self sustaining, all he could expect from the taxpayers on my watch is a meal and one night's bunk priveliges.

 

Regarding the links comments,

I don't know where you got Sudan from?

Did you select the 'OECD countries' on TAB 1?

You need to as it defaults to the poor countries, but the OECD

countries are there as well.

 

I only mentioned Sudan to head off a discussion of homeless people in places in the world where people actually do have a tough time feeding and housing themselves.

 

My remarks on homelessness are directed towards homeless people here in the US.

 

 

Show me a human being, club, organisation, think tank, NGO,

that doesn't have an agenda? The Australian Nurses Federation for e.g.

has a ton of agendas, but falsifying research is not one of them.

 

Falsifing in not a word I would use. I would prefer to characterize it as disingenuous. Leaving out something here and something there can make a big difference.

 

 

One can lead horses to water ...

 

I find the survey credible as it's

a) A UN body and there are plenty of right wing think tanks around the

world that would plaster them if they faked stuff.

b) It's been released as part of a book that was sent around for

fact checking before publication.

No data source is perfect or 100% sure, but I think this one is

pretty armoured.

 

But it's a free country, if you are that bothered about how the

survey was done email their chief library officer and ask him/her.

or Email the publishers, (you can get them of amazon).

 

Cheers.

 

The UN, with all it's credibility problems that are comming to light lately is not a reliable source of anything--in my opinion.

 

And almost anyone can write a book as even a cursory examination of the book stores will attest.