segnosaur

The exact questions asked on the census form related to your ethnic background are: This question collects information on the ancestral origins of the population and provides information about the composition of Canada's diverse population. 17. What were the ethnic or cultural origins of this person's ancestors? An ancestor is usually more distant than a grandparent. For example, Canadian, English, French, Chinese, East Indian, Italian, German, Scottish, Irish, Cree, Mi'kmaq, Salish, Métis, Inuit, Filipino, Dutch, Ukrainian, Polish, Portuguese, Greek, Korean, Vietnamese, Jamaican, Jewish, Lebanese, Salvadorean, Somali, Colombian, etc. Specify as many origins as applicable using capital letters. __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ 19. Is this person: Mark more than one or specify, if applicable. This information is collected in accordance with the Employment Equity Act and its Regulations and Guidelines to support programs that promote equal opportunity for everyone to share in the social, cultural, and economic life of Canada. White South Asian (e.g., East Indian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan, etc.) Chinese Black Filipino Latin American Arab Southeast Asian (e.g., Vietnamese, Cambodian, Malaysian, Laotian, etc.) West Asian (e.g., Iranian, Afghan, etc.) Korean Japanese Other - Specify __________________ From: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/survey-enquete/household-menages/5178-eng.htm

Where are the statisitics for that? Ummmm... the statistics were in the very first reference I gave in my post. They came from the CDC. The first stat you sight is influenza-associated deaths and I don't think shows anything more than annual variables. Actually, the first reference is for the number of influenza-related pediatric deaths... The graphs are pretty simple. Not sure how anyone can be so incompetent that they can't understand them. 2007/08 - 88 deaths. 2008/08 - 133 deaths 2009/10 - 282 deaths - This was the year of the H1N1 Pandemic. Notice the number of deaths is a lot higher than previous years? Why do you think that is? 2010/11 - 97 deaths - After the pandemic. Number of deaths is back down Actually, no its not. The important thing to note is that the number of hospitalization of children aged 0-4 far exceeds the number of people hospitalized in other age groups. This is quite different than the patterns in other years, when its often the elderly that have the most hospitalizations (For example, see: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2010-2011/EIP816.htm) For example: (from the references provided above) 2007/08 - ~40 children/100,000 were hostpitalized, compared to ~75 elderly/100,000 population 2009/10 - ~75 children/100,000 were hospitalized, compared to ~25 elderly/100,000 population. Notice something? The proportion of children hospitalized (indicating a serious infection) was much higher during the H1N1 pandemic. And your argument that it was due to "frenetic media" doesn't hold much weight. After all, doctors/hospitals tend to admit people based on actual need, not on what the patient wants. (And even if there were a few doctors who excessively admitted patients because of the "panic", you would see the same increase in admissions in all age groups. You didn't see that though... You only saw children with a higher admission rate.) Merely suppositions on your part. Which is based more in science than the airy-fairy mumbo jumbo bunk that you keep pushing. You know, I've published multiple references in this thread to mainstream sources. Now where exactly is your evidence? Does it exist? (Hint: No, it doesn't.) Oh, jesus christ on a pogo stick. Not that type of nonsense again. The fact is, despite claims of "rich" pharmaceutical companies, the vaccine market is not really that lucrative. Consider: In the 1970s there were dozens of companies manufacturing influenza vaccines. Now, there's around a third of that. If there's so much money to be made, why are companies leaving the market? From: http://www.medbroadc...channel_id=1026 In the 1970s, there were as many as 25 flu vaccine makers. Today, there are only two major suppliers for the world. That's because vaccine-making is a risky business with high levels of liability and low profit margins that most pharmaceutical companies avoid. From: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba655 (Note: I recognize that this is a potentially biased source; however, I am referencing it here because its conclusions match the more "mainstream" source given above.) Vaccines account for only 2 percent of pharmaceutical revenues. 2% is still hundreds of millions of dollars if not in the billions. So, not only are you ignorant of science/epidemiology, you are also ignorant of business. Just a little hint... when you're dealing with big business, you care about profit margin, not raw dollars. Even if I had potential earnings of $1 billion, I'm not going to bother with a product if I have to invest $100 billion to see that profit. Where is your proof!!!!!!!!!!! Oh' that's right... you don't have any, except your wonderful hand-waving. I've provided references. You have given zip. Zero. Ziltch. Nada. The big nothing. That's because you seem to be rather scientifically ignorant. Here's a study they did with 264 health care professionals. They found that the number of reported illnesses among those who were vaccinated against influenza was 29/100 people, whereas the people who did not receive the vaccine was 41/100 people. http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/281/10/908.short See? A study doing real science. Appearing in an actual scientific journal. Amazing, isn't it? Oh, and here's a study involving 1600 children involving the nasal vaccine. They found that vaccinated children have, on average, 1.2 fewer days of influenza-like illness than those who didn't receive the vaccine. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/108/2/e24 And guess what? That's an actual scientific study. You're right. That's why, when I provide evidence regarding the influenza vaccine, I like to point to actual scientific studies, with things like control groups and double blind protocols. Those studies do not count as "anecdotal". Its solid evidence. Its the way science progresses. And I ask people to actually look at real hard evidence, like that provided by science. I do not have a "belief" in this area. Belief implies acceptance without evidence. However, the evidence in this matter is pointing to the fact that vaccines save lives. Its based on multiple studies, involving thousands upon thousands of patients. Nope. A skeptic is not a cynic. A skeptic does not automatically question everything that is presented to them. Instead, a skeptic looks at the quality and weight of evidence presented to them. I am a skeptic. I accept that vaccines work because I've viewed the evidence, weighed the quality of evidence supporting vaccination (multiple studies involving thousands of patients, many performed using double blind protocols to avoid "proof by anecdote") vs. those against vaccination (snake oil salesmen and anecdotes by idiots). The evidence supporting vaccination is more convincing to anyone who approaches things with a rational mind.

Don't think its quite accurate to call the H1N1 a "mild" flu. While the overall death rate from H1N1 was lower than in previous years, the flu did have a different effect than other strains... it tended to hit younger people worse than the elderly. (For example, in the 2007/08 and 2010/11 seasons in the U.S., the number of pediatric deaths was under 100. During the 2009/10 H1N1 pandemic, the death rate shot up to almost 300.) I know its impossible to put a "value" on human life, but I suspect most people would be more concerned about a virus that seems to hit younger people harder than the elderly. http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2010-2011/IPD16.htm http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2010-2011/EIP516.htm I could also point out that perhaps part of the reason why death rates were so low during the H1N1 "pandemic" is because vaccination did end up being more widespread than it might have otherwise have been, due to the panic. (I do recognize though that the flu season peaked early, which would have reduced the value in the vaccination.) As I said before... its more likely that low H1N1 rates this year are due in part to the widespread vaccination that already occurred. Oh, jesus christ on a pogo stick. Not that type of nonsense again. The fact is, despite claims of "rich" pharmaceutical companies, the vaccine market is not really that lucrative. Consider: In the 1970s there were dozens of companies manufacturing influenza vaccines. Now, there's around a third of that. If there's so much money to be made, why are companies leaving the market? From: http://www.medbroadcast.com/health_news_details.asp?news_id=4964&news_channel_id=1026 In the 1970s, there were as many as 25 flu vaccine makers. Today, there are only two major suppliers for the world. That's because vaccine-making is a risky business with high levels of liability and low profit margins that most pharmaceutical companies avoid. From: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba655 (Note: I recognize that this is a potentially biased source; however, I am referencing it here because its conclusions match the more "mainstream" source given above.) Vaccines account for only 2 percent of pharmaceutical revenues.

and the military is never wrong Of course they can be wrong. So can doctors, accountants and jugglers. But, they are also more knowledgeable about military equipment than your average civilian. I trust a doctor more than my neighbor to know what's best for my health because he's been trained to deal with it. Yup, of course they should. But that doesn't necessarily mean that civilians should necessary micromanage our military procurements. By all means, let the voters decide what overall tasks that we want from our military. (Want to protect the arctic? Engage in humanitarian missions? Involve ourselves in international organizations like NATO? All valid issues to be decided by the public.) But if we say "We want Canada to be able to do mission X", then we shouldn't be surprised if the military comes back and says "we can't do mission X without equipment Y". It would be difficult if not impossible to (for example) participate in missions like Libya or Kosovo without functioning aircraft without certain technical characteristics. As long as we (including our elected representatives) want to participate in such missions we'll need people with the knowledge to procure the hardware required.

ya it's a big issue 63% of canadians don't think we need them... Actually, I believe the statement in the poll is not "we don't need them", but "now is not a good time", which is a slightly different issue. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadians-dont-share-harpers-zest-for-fighter-jets-debt-reduction-poll-shows/article1950801/) And, although I might be branded as an "elitist" (or something similar), it may not always be best to expect average citizens to actually make wise decisions when it comes to military spending, especially when its given as such a simple format. Such procurements are complex; they involve issues like maintenance costs, industrial side benefits, etc. Ask them point blank "Should be spend billions for new planes" they may say no; point to the cost of alternatives, and the expected life of our CF18 fleet and at least some may change their minds. and right up to pearl harbour there admirals by the boat load who swore battleships were the only way to go...the japanese disagreed... Ummmm... if you're going to use a Pearl Harbor analogy, you have things backwards. Those saying we should stick with the old technology (like the CF18 fleet) are the ones that are more like those who favored battleships over aircraft carriers. On the other hand, the F-35 has new technology unavailable in the CF18 (or in many alternatives.) Basically, its those favoring the F-35 who are more like the Japanese who saw the advantages to the "new technology" of aircraft carriers. (Oh, and by the way, it is a bit simplistic to say the "japanese disagreed" that battleships were the way to go. Even though they did make great use of air power, many in the Japanese military still clung to the idea of the battleship as key. Even after Pearl Harbor they continued building battleships (including the battleship Yamoto.) Yup. And what the military needs and what non-expert civilians think they need is also different.

No party has ever said they wouldn't. Well, the Liberals have claimed they will hold an "open competition", but they have not stated when such a competition would be held, or what characteristics they will require of any purchases. And I've seen at least one Liberal ad that basically had a checklist pointing out Harper will buy jets, Liberals will support families... (Not even "cheaper" jets, but they seem to be shying away from any purchases at all.)

Well, the particular strains of flu that are commonly circulating usually varies on a year to year basis. (And, as RNG stated, groups like the WHO have to guess months in advance as to which strains will be most common.) Off the top of my head, I'd have to say that what's happened is that the H1N1 strain, which had been an "emerging" strain last year, has now become just another endemic strain, but one that is still the most common. With no other emerging flu strain to overtake H1N1, there was little need for any large scale response this year. People who got the shot the previous season were already protected against the most common circulating strain, those who didn't get the shots were mostly brain damaged idiots who wouldn't get the shot anyways because they're amoral jerks. From: http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2010/08/10/who-h1n1-swine-flu-pandemic.html The WHO and its international group of influenza experts has been watching for a number of signs it believes are key to determining that H1N1 is morphing into a seasonal flu virus that circulates during winter months in the northern and southern hemispheres.

You're right... no other country in the world apart from the U.S. has an elected senate. Well, except for France. And Italy. And Spain. So apart from those countries its a purely U.S. ideal. Oh, and Belgium and Brazil. So only those 5 countries. And Australia. So 6 countries. Ummm... Here's a question... Why are you using the 'globalresearch' web site as a source of information? Globalresearch is one of these web sites that hosts plenty of conspiracy nonsense (like how the towers were "demolished with explosives", etc.) That kind of hurts any sort of credibility you might want to have (much like linking to a UFO site would harm the credibility of someone trying to talk about science.)

it's kind of your own fault you should know better, having an informed intelligent honest discussion with her is rather futile...you'd have more success explaining astrophysics with some hunter gather from the depths of the amazon, at least they would attempt to understand what you're trying to explain... Yeah, I do recognize the futility of trying to 'debate' with someone who is a super-duper ultra mega-christian. But hey, anything that can be done to expose the corrupt nature of people like that could be beneficial, should there be any christians more capable of rational thought reading this thread. Perhaps others might recognize the type of hypocrisy and dishonesty that "true christians" like betsy exhibit and decide not to associate themselves with people like her.

Ummm... does anyone else consider it extremely hypocritical that betsy would complain about someone seeing 'just' part of the evidence, while in post 31 (after I provided references showing how scummy Mother Teresa was) she stated "...I haven't read any of those..." So, why is she complaining about other people not watching all of her unscientific mumbo-jumbo when she's quite happy wallowing in her own ignorance? Psssss... just so you know... Atheism does not have a 'belief'. Belief implies the acceptance of something without evidence. (From the dictionary: confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.) You have belief in a god, because there is no proof and you accept it anyways. I have no proof that there is no god, just as I have no proof there isn't an invisible pink unicorn living in my sock drawer. What I do have is an acceptance that there is no real 'proof' of god, so in the absence of proof we assume the null hypothesis... that there is no invisible sky daddy.

Ummmm... no, it hasn't. The only one who has attempted to deal with Mother Teresa in this thread was betsy, and all she did was: - State that she didn't read any of the references I provided - Never actually produced any information actually contradicting what I posted. Never stated how much she collected, nor how much of that money actually went to help the poor. All she stated was that she 'helped the hungry', a completely vague and useless statement - Basically stuck her fingers in her ears and shouted 'la la la... I'm not listenning'. Ummm... I never claimed she lived a "life of privilege". (I never said she was partying it up on a boat in the Caribbean, or that she was living like Charlie Sheen.) To claim that I thought she lived a 'live of privilege' is a giant red herring. Quite dishonest. I guess you didn't read the part in the bible about "thou shalt not lie'. What I said was that the money she collected was done under false pretenses. The image she cultivated was that she was trying to help the sick and poor, but that money that was collected found its way into general church revenue, and that if you gave to her to 'help the poor' your money was just as likely used to cover up sex abuses by priests as it was to feed a starving resident of India. See: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18277&st=15&p=640340entry640340 Of course, I could point out that while she wasn't exactly "partying it up", her work did have her hanging out with many world leaders and receiving many accolades. Many people might think that such recognition, even if it didn't have monetary rewards, would have value itself. Simple, because she was not a good person. Neither was Bernie Maddoff. But you know what the difference between Mother Teresa and Bernie Maddoff was? People eventually figured out that Maddoff was a bad person. I'm quite willing to criticize "real criminals". But here's the thing... people already know that "criminals are bad". Most people don't know that Mother Teresa was also bad. Well, I'm dealing with intellectually dishonest people like you and Betsy. I provide proof of Mother Teresa's less-than-admirable qualities. I point out that the information comes from reputable sources. And what do I get? "La la la... I'm not listening".

Re: Mother Teresa and her scummy acts... Actually, yes indeed it is addressing the point. You had asked for a source for my information (quite a reasonable request). I provided the source, and indicated why they are reputable sources. If you are still basing your claim on the question "how accurate are the reports", then it is you who is at fault. Really, what exactly were you expecting as proof? A signed letter from the pope? A video confession by Mother Teresa saying "ha ha suckers!!"? (Although something tells me that even if such evidence were provided, you would still disregard it not because it would be untrustworthy, but because your beliefs are so ingrained that you are willing to lie in order to protect them.) So, in short: - People who worked with mother Teresa indicated that for decades she collected money under false pretenses, and that her actions directly lead to suffering and death - Those abuses were reported in the mainstream media - You (and others like you) prefer to ignore facts and lie in order to protect someone who was, in effect, a real scum bag. If you wonder why many people have such a low opinion of religious people, perhaps you should look in a mirror. Your actions are pretty much the same as sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "la la la" whenever someone provides anything resembling the truth to you. And you think atheists are not selective? There's nothing to be selective of. There's no master 'atheist text', no central teachings. There may be differences in the way people deal with their atheism (some more vocal than others) but that doesn't mean they're being "selective". Oh, and by the way, even if atheists were being "selective" (they aren't, but lets pretend they were) that doesn't necessarily excuse the christians from being selective, even if they are claiming to be following the "true teachings of jebus".

But you're missing the point that has been made in this thread: Everyone who is a christian is selective about which teachings they adhere to. They have to. Why? Because the bible is a mass of contradictions. Even those who are nice, generous, etc. (i.e. what some people might say is a "good christian following the teachings") is simply doing a selective interpretation which ignores anything in the bible that might be interpreted as 'bad'. I'm reminded of a Simpson's episode, where the Flander's character is questioning his faith, and says "I follow every part of the Bible, even the parts that contradict the other parts!" (paraphrasing). Makes me want to puke too... not because I think he's misusing the bible, but because is statements are so ridiculous.

So they imagine themelves good Christians. That's their problem, isn't it? What they think and consider does not matter - because vile acts were still committed. You only consider the acts committed by christians in Nazi germany vile because you have had instructions given to you during your upbringing that said so. The bible is not as clear as you seem to think, and can be interpreted in many ways. The only difference between a christian doing "good works" and a christian doing "evil deeds that they think are good" is the set of moral principles administered outside of the bible.

You look at the quality of the sources. As I pointed out, much of the criticism of Mother Teresa is coming from main stream sources (like the BBC). Many of the people who are actually doing the criticizing are former volunteers, people that would have had first hand knowledge. We're not talking about some anonymous nobody sitting in his basement posting stuff on his Facebook page. Sources like broadcast networks and news magazines have a certain reputation to uphold. They may not be perfect, but they usually try to 'get things right', and in this case multiple sources have all confirmed the same thing. Rationalist may be an organization which has an anti-religious agenda, but the individual writing the article is actually from India and is more that capable enough to judge what 'effect' Mother Teresa has on the people of India. And even if you discount his statements, the same information is still confirmed by sources associated with Stern magazine, the BBC and Slate. Why exactly do you make that assumption? Remember, Obama was awarded the prize, probably for no other reason than "He's not Bush". Or the year they gave the prize to Wangari Maathai, who had been making bizarre "AIDS is a western conspiracy" type statements. So yes, sometimes they do give the award for people for political or other reasons, and/or may not properly vet the recipients. And they probably did. But as I mentioned before, when you're fighting a "legend" you are often fighting a loosing battle regardless of how much proof you have. Why? Because of the whole circular reasoning thing people are unwilling to break: She's famous because she did good work. How do you know she did good work? She must have because she's famous. Ummmm... the statements from her former workers are not edited or taken out of context. If you actually watched the Hell's Angel documentary I published, it contains an interview with very direct statements. How exactly can you take comments like "They reused needles at her clinics without sterilizing them" out of context? Ummm... no, its not. This isn't just one single isolated incident staining decades of good work. As I pointed out before, these "abuses" carried on for decades, and covered her actions over multiple parts of the globe. You can point to her failings in India, Haiti, Ireland, the U.S., etc. It depends on what denomination or interpretation you're referring. My belief (same as Living Truth Ministry) is that believing Jesus is your Saviour is not enough to be a true Christian. In that case what you're doing is your modifying the term "Christian" to be something that it is not. But the problem, as I mentioned before, is that "his teachings" are not as clear as you seem to be believing. The bible is really a horrible miss mash of junk crammed together, with many contradictions and segments that condone some pretty evil behavior. The fact that you seem to be interpreting the bible "in some way" does not mean that there are other, just as valid interpretations that exist that mean the exact opposite. (For example, in post 10 and 13 I quoted some bible verses that suggest Jesus was against forgiveness and condoned slavery and/or social inequality, something that I'm sure most christians would be horrified by.) Aaaaaannnndddd.... back to that. Just as I predicted. What exactly are you basing your claim "tried her best to feed the hungry" on? Do you have the balance sheets showing how much money she collected? Do you have the figures showing how many got fed on a daily basis? How can you make the claim she "did her best" without knowing that? Which of course is the problem. Her religious order did nothing to release those figures. Instead, what we do have are interviews with former workers who point out they collected millions of dollars (exactly how much is unknown, we just know what individual workers dealt with), and people familiar with her clinics/charity work who said "none of this money got used by us". You're suggestion that she "tried her best to feed the hungry" is based on nothing but her legend. Its a little ironic that you would demand "proof" that Mother Teresa was a big sack of crap, yet when it comes to defending her, all you need is her legend. Facts? Who needs them, when you're dealing with the "legend" of Mother Teresa. So, does that mean you think suffering is a 'good thing', and if someone is in extreme pain they should never ever be given drugs to control the pain because "suffering is good"? If you saw someone that was in extreme agony, you'd say "Yipee! You're closer to god!"

No, it doesn't. The 500 billion in debt is because previous governments (primarily Trudeau) spent more than he was collecting, through both bad economic times (when the extra spending would supposedly boost the economy) and good. (If Trudeau had been following the Keynesian ideals, he would have had a surplus.) So, don't blame the huge debt on Keynesian economics... blame it on people not following the principles. Recessions are a normal part of the economic boom-bust cycle. Different recessions had different causes. Late 2000s - bad lending practices, housing bubble, deregulation, bad handling of european governments Early-90s - Stock market drop, gulf war and oil price increases Early-80s - Oil crisis, Iranian revolution We can't say there's any "one" cause. Our housing market never got as 'hot' as the U.S. market. But, we do export products to the rest of the world. If the U.S. or Europe is not buying as much, then we will loose jobs. And if banks in the U.S. are 'cautious' about lending, Canadian banks will probably also restrict their loans. Resources don't have to 'run out'... even if there is a potential reduction in resources it can have a bad effect. (e.g. there was still plenty of oil available in the ground in the early 90s, but the risk that the middle east wouldn't be able to supply as much as they had been caused problems. Actually, a lot of Canada's debt is held by pension plans and mutual funds. They do earn interest on their loans, but the return is not really that great (interest rates are under 2%. See: http://csb.gc.ca/about/rates/) Of course, any interest earned by pension plans ends up going back to the citizens of Canada. A little context is helpful here. Even if you assume that having a deficit is "bad", you have to consider the alternatives. Both the Liberals and NDP were also proposing stimulus spending when Harper brought in the action plan. You cannot condemn Harper for a deficit, and turn around and vote for the Liberals/NDP without exposing yourself as a hypocrite.

If you weren't going to read, then why exactly did you comment? Keep in mind that this is not just "something negative at some point". This is a long, on-going set of actions and attitudes on Mother Teresa's part. Well, lets see: - Christopher Hitchens (one of the sources) is a pretty well-known journalist (so, its not like he's some random guy with a web site). In fact, he was even asked by the vatican to act as "devil's advocate" during Mother Teresa's beatification - The "Hell's Angel" documentary I referred to was on the BBC, a major media organization (so its not like I'm asking you to judge things based on a home-made youTube video) - Stern is apparently a major magazine in Germany (print run of 1 million). Not being german myself, I can't really say how well its written, but from the wikipedia entry they seem to publish a wide range of political views (so its not like some radical magazine) - In the references I've provided were interviews/statements from people who actually worked for the organization (so its not like all the information is 3rd hand, coming from someone who heard something that a friend told them that they heard from a stranger) So, I'd have to say the reports are probably pretty accurate. I think the more important question would be... what exactly would they base the rebuttal on? Like I said before, those defending Mother Teresa seem to be quite happy pointing to her legend, without ever giving any sort of concrete information about what she actually did with all of the resources at her disposal. It becomes almost a case of circular reasoning: She's well respected because people think she's done "good works". What proof do you have that she's done "good works"? Well, she must have, because she's well respected. Mother Teresa had a pretty firm grip on her organization, and the quotes regarding "suffering" came directly from her. Ummm... nobody was saying she "wasn't christian". Its already been pointed out that the only "requirement" to be a christian is that you believe that jebus was a real, godlike, and your "savior". The worst mass murderer of all could have been a "christian". What we are pointing out that she was a bad person. Evil. A real sack of crap. Bernie Maddoff in a nun's outfit. And that is the real issue... being "christian" (be it evangelical or moderate) does not automatically mean you are a "good person". Do me a favor... you christians supposedly believe in "honesty". Next time you're trying to convince people of how wonderful god and your beliefs are, try mentioning how "saintly" mother Teresa made comments praising suffering. See how many people actually agree with you. Which god would that be? Odin? Amon-Ra? Zeus? Oh, please let it be Zeus... that would be awesome cool.

Oh, here's one more quote, from a former member of Mother Teresa's order... From: http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/shields_18_1.html Some years after I became a Catholic, I joined Mother Teresa's congregation, the Missionaries of Charity. I was one of her sisters for nine and a half years, living in the Bronx, Rome, and San Francisco, until I became disillusioned and left in May 1989. ... When Mother spoke publicly, she never asked for money, but she did encourage people to make sacrifices for the poor, to "give until it hurts." Many people did - and they gave it to her....The donations rolled in and were deposited in the bank, but they had no effect on our ascetic lives and very little effect on the lives of the poor we were trying to help. ... She seemed obsessed with using only the simplest of means for our work. ...In Haiti, to keep the spirit of poverty, the sisters reused needles until they became blunt. Seeing the pain caused by the blunt needles, some of the volunteers offered to procure more needles, but the sisters refused.

Of course you know that this kind of statement needs something to back it up. Link please. Most of my information comes from the book The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in theory and Practice, by Christopher Hitchens. Unfortunately he does not have the text of his book on line. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Missionary_Position However, there are a few other sources out there available on-line. Regarding Mother Teresa's financial contributions: The German magazine Stern (10 September 1998) published a devastating critique of Mother Teresa's work on the first anniversary of her death. The article, entitled 'Mother Teresa, Where Are Your Millions?', which took a year's research in three continents, concluded that her organisation is essentially a religious order that does not deserve to be called a charitable foundation. No protest has been forthcoming from her order. The book "The Final Verdict" (By Aroup Chatterjee). Partial text available here: http://www.meteorbooks.com/introduction.html ...she was a friend to the worst of the rich, taking misappropriated money from the atrocious Duvalier family in Haiti (whose rule she praised in return) and from Charles Keating of the Lincoln Savings and Loan. Where did that money, and all the other donations, go? The primitive hospice in Calcutta was as run down when she died as it always had been—she preferred California clinics when she got sick herself—and her order always refused to publish any audit From: http://www.slate.com/id/2090083 Her order is only one among more than 200 charitable organizations, which try to help the slum-dwellers of Calcutta to build a better future. It is locally not very visible or active. But tall claims like the absolutely baseless story of her slum school for 5000 children have brought enormous international publicity to her institutions. And enormous donations! Mother Teresa has collected many, many millions (some say: billions) of Dollars in the name of India's paupers (and many, many more in the name of paupers in the other "gutters" of the world). Where did all this money go? It is surely not used to improve the lot of those, for whom it was meant. From: http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/mother_teresa/sanal_ed.htm Regarding medical treatment at her "hospitals" The patients are treated with good words and insufficient (sometimes outdated) medicines, applied with old needles, washed in lukewarm water. One can hear the screams of people having maggots tweezered from their open wounds without pain relief. On principle, strong painkillers are even in hard cases not given. According to Mother Teresa's bizarre philosophy, it is "the most beautiful gift for a person that he can participate in the sufferings of Christ". From: http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/mother_teresa/sanal_ed.htm There is also the documentary "Hell's Angel", broadcast on the BBC, which interviews some of the people who witnessed what actually goes on at her hospitals. (Normally I like to avoid publishing youtube videos as 'proof'; however, information in the video is supported by other references I have supplied, so its optional. However, the video does have interviews by people who have actually witnessed what goes on at her clinics. Edited to add: Now let me make a prediction... somewhere along the line someone will claim that I'm wrong, that Mother Teresa was a wonderful person. But here's the thing... nobody will be able to point to exactly what she did. They won't be able to point to how much money she collected, how many starving people were fed, etc. Instead, they simply assume that her reputation is enough proof of her good works, without considering the possibility that her reputation is based on nothing more than well-managed publicity.

Hey GWiz... you're still not dealing with the most important issue... Why are you quoting conspiracy web sites like "Global Research" in some of your posts? Do you feel that 9/11 conspiracy sites are actually a good source of information? Everyone's waiting to hear your wisdom on this matter.

No, I want you to actually provide actual data and/or logic that can be properly analyzed. Simply quoting the opinions of another when they have not given proper details is worthless. Got it? So, once again, where is your f*king data? Nope, they aren't. And I've already provided references to prove my point. With real actual facts in them. Not opinions, but facts. So, try again. Irrelevant. The global recession was around 1990-91. By the time Chretien came to power the economy was already growing again. http://www.nber.org/cycles.html So Mulroney had to deal with the problems associated by that particular recession... Chretien did not.

Hey GWiz... Still waiting to hear why you are using conspiracy web sites like "global research" in order to justify your claims. And since you consider them to be such a valuable resource, do you also believe in many of their other fine articles? Like how the twin towers were actually destroyed by a secret conspiracy planting explosives?

Ummm... Gordon Thiessen was actually appointed to the post by Chretien. And just because he was at the Bank of Canada, he is not f*kcinig posting here, you are. I cannot question him, ask for clarifications, or examine any details because he provided none. Really, if you can't provide your own justification for your opinions you are a pretty worthless human. Once again, point out exactly what facts that I presented which are incorrect. - Did Mulroney leave office with a budget surplus? - Did global interest rates get lower around the time Chretien took power? - Did the global economy expand rapidly when Chretien took power?

Hmmm...I always wondered where "pork rinds" came from. Gimme back my foreskin! Actually, doctors who perform the operation usually use the extra material to make wallets. But when you rub them, they become suitcases. Actually, there are people who have manage to 'restore' their foreskin by stretching the remaining skin using weights.

Just because the term "barbaric" is not used by people commenting on a particular crime does not mean that they wouldn't describe the crime in those terms if asked. I happen to think the greyhound bus decapitation, the Simpson murders, and the JonBonet cases were all "barbaric", even if it wouldn't always be the first choice of words to use to describe them. You have a right to your opinion (and that's exactly what the above is). In my opinion, it is perfectly acceptable to label a particular activity as barbaric without implying all elements of the culture are also "barbarians". Its not a case of 'honesty'... its just a matter of opinion. As I said before, it is my opinion that labeling a particular practice as 'barbaric' does not mean an entire culture is barbaric. You're right, its not. The difference is, an "honor killing" often has some sort of cultural acceptance. (That's what makes it an 'honor killing' as opposed to a straight-out murder). We can't protect ourselves from (for example) an immigrant who is insane and kills because his neighbor's dog told him to.... his actions were probably seen as evil in their own country as well. It is when a particular process is accepted in an original culture that we have to be careful to prevent people from bringing the same attitudes to Canada. I believe that male circumcision is something that we can do without. (Its an unnecessary procedure, it decreases pleasure during sex, it can cause infections, etc.) However, I do have to point out: - The effects of male circumcision are far less traumatic than in female circumcision... the procedure is far less painful, and sensation is far less affected - There is some medical support to the benefits of male circumcision (reduction in cancer rates, infections, etc. Admittedly the information is not definitive though.) There is no such benefit to female circumcision Note that once again I'm not condoning male circumcision; I just don't see the process to be as significant as female circumcision.