Due to my inability to keep to the old schedule, I'm writing a new one.
First off, I should explain a bit more about my cat (Boo) and what has happened to him.
In March, my Roomate (whom I shall call Kris) noticed that Boo was peeing a lot, much more than usual. She decided to test his urine and it came back positive for sugar - something not normal. We called a vet and the vet tested Boo's blood, and turns out he has Diabetes. We gave him insulin, tested multiple times a day, and switched his diet. He went into remission in June
.
In late July, Kris and I noticed that Boo was throwing up at about the same time every morning. We could not figure out why. A week or so later, Kris noticed Boo not acting normal, and we again called the vet who ran a number of tests. We were referred to another vet, and from there to another. We eventually found out that Boo has a combo of Irritable Bowel Disease, Fatty Liver Disease, Pancreatitis, and inflamed intestines. This is a very bad combination, as the treatment for any one of them (pain killers, for the Pancreatitis, for example) makes another worse (constipation) and other drugs can't be processed due to the Liver problems.
We had a feeding tube put in, and since then, have been feeding Boo though the tube using a syringe. The process of feeding takes about 15 minutes and Boo is sometimes resistant. In addition, he throws up once or twice a day, and can only eat so much at one time. Due to possible feeding tube damage when he vomits and the need to get a minimum of food in to him so he can physically survive, this means he needs to be monitored 24 hours a day.
Kris and I have been doing so. More her than I actually, as she knows much more about medicine, and I have a bad habit of passing off work to others when I can. We've agreed that we would take "shifts" of 10 to 10. From 10pm to 10am, I am "on duty". The idea is for me to be awake during these hours, and sleeping during the remainder. Since I only need 8 hours sleep, the exact timings are flexible. We may change these timings (for example, to 6 to 6, with me still on the "night shift") but in general, I'm awake at night.
At least, that is how things are supposed to go.
I've been feeling ill recently. I finally got a family doctor, the first in my adult life. He told me that my Asthma was flaring up. The difficulty in breathing was making me sleep much more than 8 hours (due to poor quality sleep) and this put stress on Kris, which in turn, but stress on me (I was not choosing to sleep all day long) The new medication that the doctor gave me however seems to be having the opposite effect, in that now I can not get to sleep. Due to these things, my sleeping has been all over the place, and when awake, I've been having difficulty concentrating. Now that the election is over, and Kris begins at university, our schedules are getting more set, and I will hopefully be able to get into a normal routine.
The schedule for the new few days is therefore "get into a routine". This is not very good for posting on a blog however. Therefore I will commit to the following.
My first goal is to finish gathering and sorting the data from the election. Once that is done, I will examine where I went wrong, and compare my results to that of other projectors. None of us did very well, but I may have done worse than average. I will examine the reasons why.
I'll take the real data and I will examine it in comparison to my projection. My goal here will be to find ways to adjust the model to better match the results. I suspect that I can do this somewhat easily by taking a third of the ADQ vote and applying it to the PLQ.
Sometime before the Ontario By-Elections I will make a post about it. I will also live-tweet the results.
Once all that is done, I will have to make a serious change to the ElectoMatic, the most serious change ever made. In the post explaining it, I will describe the "Ratio" system I use, and how it is much better than the "Flat" system used by others. I will also explain how I will add a new "Swing" method to the mix.
Once that is complete, I will take the new model out for a few test runs, putting in past election results (IE 1979 federal) and past result popular vote numbers (IE 1980 federal) and seeing how well it works. I will continue to tweak it until I get it to work as close to reality as possible. I will also focus on trying to estimate huge swings (1980 to 1984 federally in Quebec, or 1988 to 1993 in Western Canada) and anything else I think could be useful.
After that, we'll have to see what is going on in politics!
Showing posts with label Personal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Personal. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Saturday, September 1, 2012
What I want to happen
Whether intentional or unintentional, our biases influence our work. I'd therefore like to explain where I stand in relation to the parties in Quebec.
I've never been a fan of the PQ. I've always felt they are a little bit racist. They think of the Quebecois as an ethnicity, "nous", while I, do not. I think of the Quebecois as no different than Acadians, a type of French who live in Canada. To me, Acadian and Quebecois are "Ethnically" French, as in France French, and the same applies to all French-Canadians. The PQ seems to think differently with relations to Quebecois. They seem to think of the Quebecois much as the Kurds do of themselves. Trying to argue that the Kurds should have more rights an an independent Kurdistan is something that many would support; but the Kurds are internationally recognized as an independent ethnic group, the Quebecois are not. For this reason I despise the current PQ, Marois, and the PQ campaign of identity politics. I consider their plan to restrict the rights of those who do not speak French as akin to ethnic cleansing. Perhaps not the same violence-based ethnic cleansing that has been seen in the Balkans, but much closer to the expulsion of the Acadians by the British in the 1700s. I honestly think that the PQ would be very very happy if every last Anglophone left Quebec, and that is a viewpoint that I find disgusting.
The QS is an interesting case for me. While I support an alternative to the PQ, I do not oppose sovereignty as an idea. In fact, I favour more provincial powers, and, support the right of Quebec to declare independence on 50%+1 of the vote in a referendum. The QS however is more than just another sovereigntist party, they are very radically left wing. I may be on the left of the spectrum on many issues, but I'm just not as left wing as the QS. For this reason, while I am quite happy to see them take seats away from the PQ in Montreal, I would be a little uncomfortable to see them become a large party.
The ON appeals to me. I've never seen anyone even bother to attempt to make the case for sovereignty until this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fsIE63fP-4&feature=plcp
As mentioned above, I think that this argument is a strong one. Despite that, given the history of the PQ, this 25 second shaky video is still the single strongest argument ever made for Anglophones to vote OUI. I honestly think if the ON were to get into government and rule for 5 years, that Anglophones would actually be willing to vote OUI. The fear of PQ racism is what I think drives many Anglophones to go out in droves and vote against Separation. With the ON trying to prove that you can be a OUI voter and not a racist, they appeal to me.
The PLQ is tired and old, and Charest seems unwilling to think outside the box to change things. Don't get me wrong, I have great respect for Charest. In fact, the "Charest Liberal" is where I often sit politically. In the centre-right of economics but still Liberal. Charest has also been one of the luckiest politicians in the history of Canada. He avoided winning the 1993 PC leadership, and thus, avoided blame for the 1993 PC defeat. He brought the PC Party in 1997 back to life, and just before people started to seriously question a united right, was called away to Quebec. He lost the 1998 Quebec election, one that gave the PQ it's most unpopular term of office in over a decade, and when he finally won in 2003, it was with an ADQ that consisted of more than just one man, an alternative to the PQ. After a minority in 2007 that harmed the PQ more than the PLQ, Charest pulled a majority out of his hat in 2008. The magic has finally worn off. Corruption stains the government and Charest seems set to lose his seat and his job. The PLQ, frankly, does not deserve to be re-elected.
The CAQ is a merger of disaffected PQ and PLQ members with the old ADQ. I remember watching the 2007 election on my TV and getting to my feet, jumping in the air, clapping, and laughing, as the ADQ overtook the PLQ in terms of seats. It was not a reaction I expected from myself, but in hindsight, I was very happy to see someone, anyone, break the two party system that had existed since Levesque. Looking deep into the policies, I support the CAQ much more than I support the ADQ. If I was living in Quebec and someone gave me a ballot, telling me my riding was tied and my ballot was the deciding ballot, without question I'd vote CAQ.
So, how to counter all this bias? The first step, I think, is to be aware of it. I'm quite aware that I favour the CAQ over the PQ and it is part of what pains my thinking. Am I seeing a movement to the CAQ over the PQ because I want to, or, because the statistics back it up? That is a topic I will tackle in my next post.
I've never been a fan of the PQ. I've always felt they are a little bit racist. They think of the Quebecois as an ethnicity, "nous", while I, do not. I think of the Quebecois as no different than Acadians, a type of French who live in Canada. To me, Acadian and Quebecois are "Ethnically" French, as in France French, and the same applies to all French-Canadians. The PQ seems to think differently with relations to Quebecois. They seem to think of the Quebecois much as the Kurds do of themselves. Trying to argue that the Kurds should have more rights an an independent Kurdistan is something that many would support; but the Kurds are internationally recognized as an independent ethnic group, the Quebecois are not. For this reason I despise the current PQ, Marois, and the PQ campaign of identity politics. I consider their plan to restrict the rights of those who do not speak French as akin to ethnic cleansing. Perhaps not the same violence-based ethnic cleansing that has been seen in the Balkans, but much closer to the expulsion of the Acadians by the British in the 1700s. I honestly think that the PQ would be very very happy if every last Anglophone left Quebec, and that is a viewpoint that I find disgusting.
The QS is an interesting case for me. While I support an alternative to the PQ, I do not oppose sovereignty as an idea. In fact, I favour more provincial powers, and, support the right of Quebec to declare independence on 50%+1 of the vote in a referendum. The QS however is more than just another sovereigntist party, they are very radically left wing. I may be on the left of the spectrum on many issues, but I'm just not as left wing as the QS. For this reason, while I am quite happy to see them take seats away from the PQ in Montreal, I would be a little uncomfortable to see them become a large party.
The ON appeals to me. I've never seen anyone even bother to attempt to make the case for sovereignty until this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fsIE63fP-4&feature=plcp
As mentioned above, I think that this argument is a strong one. Despite that, given the history of the PQ, this 25 second shaky video is still the single strongest argument ever made for Anglophones to vote OUI. I honestly think if the ON were to get into government and rule for 5 years, that Anglophones would actually be willing to vote OUI. The fear of PQ racism is what I think drives many Anglophones to go out in droves and vote against Separation. With the ON trying to prove that you can be a OUI voter and not a racist, they appeal to me.
The PLQ is tired and old, and Charest seems unwilling to think outside the box to change things. Don't get me wrong, I have great respect for Charest. In fact, the "Charest Liberal" is where I often sit politically. In the centre-right of economics but still Liberal. Charest has also been one of the luckiest politicians in the history of Canada. He avoided winning the 1993 PC leadership, and thus, avoided blame for the 1993 PC defeat. He brought the PC Party in 1997 back to life, and just before people started to seriously question a united right, was called away to Quebec. He lost the 1998 Quebec election, one that gave the PQ it's most unpopular term of office in over a decade, and when he finally won in 2003, it was with an ADQ that consisted of more than just one man, an alternative to the PQ. After a minority in 2007 that harmed the PQ more than the PLQ, Charest pulled a majority out of his hat in 2008. The magic has finally worn off. Corruption stains the government and Charest seems set to lose his seat and his job. The PLQ, frankly, does not deserve to be re-elected.
The CAQ is a merger of disaffected PQ and PLQ members with the old ADQ. I remember watching the 2007 election on my TV and getting to my feet, jumping in the air, clapping, and laughing, as the ADQ overtook the PLQ in terms of seats. It was not a reaction I expected from myself, but in hindsight, I was very happy to see someone, anyone, break the two party system that had existed since Levesque. Looking deep into the policies, I support the CAQ much more than I support the ADQ. If I was living in Quebec and someone gave me a ballot, telling me my riding was tied and my ballot was the deciding ballot, without question I'd vote CAQ.
So, how to counter all this bias? The first step, I think, is to be aware of it. I'm quite aware that I favour the CAQ over the PQ and it is part of what pains my thinking. Am I seeing a movement to the CAQ over the PQ because I want to, or, because the statistics back it up? That is a topic I will tackle in my next post.
Friday, August 31, 2012
I may be 25% Québécois
My personal ethnic background has not really been much of a mystery to me until somewhat recently.
My father, also named Nick Boragina, was born in Italy, in particular, in Calabria. From what he tells me, the last name means "Bad Priest" and is 100% Italian.
My mother is Acadian. Her father, Sylvio Plourde, was born in Madawaska in New Brunswick. Her mother (RIP) Marie LeBlanc was born in Kent County in New Brunswick. Her grandmother was native, Mi'kmaq to be specific.
This was all nice and good until the past few years when I started doing some digging.
First, Boragina is not a popular last name whatsoever. It also seems to be spread around Italy. Considering what I've been told about the origin of the name, I have begun to suspect that it is a corruption of Borgia, the infamous middle-ages family that produced a number of popes. I thus, may be, part Spanish. Considering the age of these events, however, that "part" would be very minor.
What is more interesting to me is my grandfather. I can call him right now and ask (though he'll be upset I'm waking him in the middle of the night) but he will insist that he is Acadian. The "problem" is that my grandmother's sisters originally thought he was Quebecois because of his accent. As well there are a very limited number of Plourdes in New Brunswick, but a large number in Quebec. In addition, he was born suspiciously close to the Quebec border. Perhaps over a generation or two or three they became accepted as "Acadian" but in terms of "Ethnicity" - if you believe the Quebecois are an "Ethnicity" that is - it is very likely he is a Quebecois.
Thus I may be 25% Quebecois!
My father, also named Nick Boragina, was born in Italy, in particular, in Calabria. From what he tells me, the last name means "Bad Priest" and is 100% Italian.
My mother is Acadian. Her father, Sylvio Plourde, was born in Madawaska in New Brunswick. Her mother (RIP) Marie LeBlanc was born in Kent County in New Brunswick. Her grandmother was native, Mi'kmaq to be specific.
This was all nice and good until the past few years when I started doing some digging.
First, Boragina is not a popular last name whatsoever. It also seems to be spread around Italy. Considering what I've been told about the origin of the name, I have begun to suspect that it is a corruption of Borgia, the infamous middle-ages family that produced a number of popes. I thus, may be, part Spanish. Considering the age of these events, however, that "part" would be very minor.
What is more interesting to me is my grandfather. I can call him right now and ask (though he'll be upset I'm waking him in the middle of the night) but he will insist that he is Acadian. The "problem" is that my grandmother's sisters originally thought he was Quebecois because of his accent. As well there are a very limited number of Plourdes in New Brunswick, but a large number in Quebec. In addition, he was born suspiciously close to the Quebec border. Perhaps over a generation or two or three they became accepted as "Acadian" but in terms of "Ethnicity" - if you believe the Quebecois are an "Ethnicity" that is - it is very likely he is a Quebecois.
Thus I may be 25% Quebecois!
Thursday, December 31, 2009
My personal thoughts
-
So Harper has prorogued Parliament. Is he running away from the opposition? You are damn right he is. I may have voted for him in 2006, but I certainly did not in 2008. He's done many things to make me, 'cross', lets say.
Harper plans to appoint at least 5 new Senators and get some form of Senate Reform though the Senate at least. I don't know if he can pass it though the house, but there are good chances he can, somehow.
While I disagree with many of the things he's done, I do see, from my own numbers, that he is headed towards a Majority. So, what do I think of that?
I think it's just fine.
Why? Is Harper not a threat to Democracy?
Perhaps he is, but chances are he's not. People said the same thing about Chretien (read "The Friendly Dictator") and Mulroney, and Trudeau, and just about any other PM with a Majority. I really don't think Harper is 'evil' at heart, or that he would pass a bill ending Democracy. Come on, that is ridiculous. He will do, as every PM, Liberal or Tory, has done, and use his powers to unfairly block things bad for his polling numbers. He will take advantage of power and use it to boost his own party. This is not shocking news, the Liberals and PC Party are masters at this, even the NDP in BC dabbled in the practice. One reason why many people do find it shocking is Harper's Reform roots. That's gone now, clearly, and what once appeared (in 2003) to be a Reform takeover of the PC Party, has come out (in 2009) to be just the opposite. Harper was never a small r reformer, he's always been a small c conservative, and now he's a big C Conservative too.
I don't consider myself to be either a Conservative or a conservative. I do like to think of myself as a reformer (small r) and a liberal (small l) and a Green (big G). I do, however, know history. I also know that stability is important. Having 4 more years of a Harper minority and the instability it brings will hurt Canada far more than having 4 years of a Harper majority. A Harper Majority puts the country on a singular and clear path, giving him and his men control over the levers for long enough to implement policy, and see it though. Even if it's not policy I agree with, I do think that it should be given a fair shot to succeed or fail on it's own merits. If it fails, any good government would abandon it, and any bad government will be voted out of office. If it's good policy, than I will be surprised.
Regardless, my point is that 4 years with Dictator Harper is not going to destroy Canada, despite the rhetoric, and perhaps its time to just "get it over with" so that we can watch him fail, and return to another decade of competent Liberal governance, with a new leader who can actually inspire people for a change.
~Teddy
Sorry, no extra data today!
So Harper has prorogued Parliament. Is he running away from the opposition? You are damn right he is. I may have voted for him in 2006, but I certainly did not in 2008. He's done many things to make me, 'cross', lets say.
Harper plans to appoint at least 5 new Senators and get some form of Senate Reform though the Senate at least. I don't know if he can pass it though the house, but there are good chances he can, somehow.
While I disagree with many of the things he's done, I do see, from my own numbers, that he is headed towards a Majority. So, what do I think of that?
I think it's just fine.
Why? Is Harper not a threat to Democracy?
Perhaps he is, but chances are he's not. People said the same thing about Chretien (read "The Friendly Dictator") and Mulroney, and Trudeau, and just about any other PM with a Majority. I really don't think Harper is 'evil' at heart, or that he would pass a bill ending Democracy. Come on, that is ridiculous. He will do, as every PM, Liberal or Tory, has done, and use his powers to unfairly block things bad for his polling numbers. He will take advantage of power and use it to boost his own party. This is not shocking news, the Liberals and PC Party are masters at this, even the NDP in BC dabbled in the practice. One reason why many people do find it shocking is Harper's Reform roots. That's gone now, clearly, and what once appeared (in 2003) to be a Reform takeover of the PC Party, has come out (in 2009) to be just the opposite. Harper was never a small r reformer, he's always been a small c conservative, and now he's a big C Conservative too.
I don't consider myself to be either a Conservative or a conservative. I do like to think of myself as a reformer (small r) and a liberal (small l) and a Green (big G). I do, however, know history. I also know that stability is important. Having 4 more years of a Harper minority and the instability it brings will hurt Canada far more than having 4 years of a Harper majority. A Harper Majority puts the country on a singular and clear path, giving him and his men control over the levers for long enough to implement policy, and see it though. Even if it's not policy I agree with, I do think that it should be given a fair shot to succeed or fail on it's own merits. If it fails, any good government would abandon it, and any bad government will be voted out of office. If it's good policy, than I will be surprised.
Regardless, my point is that 4 years with Dictator Harper is not going to destroy Canada, despite the rhetoric, and perhaps its time to just "get it over with" so that we can watch him fail, and return to another decade of competent Liberal governance, with a new leader who can actually inspire people for a change.
~Teddy
Sorry, no extra data today!
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Web Comic
-
A personal post.
I have a webcomic now apparently... I'm more surprised than you! http://nixtuffcomix.webs.com/
Sorry, no extra data today!
A personal post.
I have a webcomic now apparently... I'm more surprised than you! http://nixtuffcomix.webs.com/
Sorry, no extra data today!
Friday, October 9, 2009
What do you do in your spare time?
-
What do you do in your spare time?
Me, I play a game called Diplomacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy_(game)
You can play in person, or online. I do the latter
This is the website I recommend personally:
http://www.dipbounced.com/
Sorry, no extra data today!
What do you do in your spare time?
Me, I play a game called Diplomacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy_(game)
You can play in person, or online. I do the latter
This is the website I recommend personally:
http://www.dipbounced.com/
Sorry, no extra data today!
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Allergies
I want to apologize to my regular readers (if I have any yet!) for my continuing absences. I've recently moved to a new address and this place aggravates my allergies. I’m working on this, however, and hope to be back to full speed shortly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)