When one makes a prediction which falls flat on it's face, it's incumbent on the predictor to own up to his mistake and explain it if he can. I shall endeavour to do so now and tell you how I reached the faulty conclusion that I did concerning my prediction that Richard Bergeron would win the race for the Montreal mayoralty.
As we all know there were many unexpected events that shook both the Harel and Tremblay camps over the course of the election. It seemed that Richard Bergeron, the kooky third place candidate was emerging from also-ran status to a legitimate contender.
He had been running at between 10% and 15% popularity at the beginning of the campaign when things seemed to catch fire and with two weeks to go in the campaign his popularity shot up to 25% with the mayor and Madame Harel neck and neck in the low 30%'s.
Days before the election Angus-Reid published a poll in Montreal's La Presse newspaper indicating that Bergeron had made a stunning breakthrough.
In one short week, he had pushed his numbers to 32% and trailed Louise Harel (34%) by just 2%. Tremblay was behind both candidates at 30% and seemed to be sinking fast.
Based on these polling numbers, it was easy to see that an unstoppable momentum was building for Bergeron and should the trend have continued over the last weekend, it was likey that he'd cruise to victory.
But he didn't, so what happened?
Very simply, one of the world's leading research agencies had completely blown the last poll published in La Presse on the eve of the election.
Every polling organization tells you that their polls are accurate to 4% (the margin of error) 19 out of 20 times
WELCOME TO THE TWENTIETH TIME.
Tremblay
Actual Vote 38% Angus Reid 30% Difference 8%
Harel
Actual Vote 32% Angus Reid 34% Difference 2%
Bergeron
Actual Vote 25% Angus Reid 32% Difference 7%
The errors in the numbers for Mr. Tremblay and Mr Bergeron are massive and in the polling business represent a humiliating failure.
Perhaps I should have been suspicious of a poll that showed such a monumental shift in opinion over such a short time, but Quebec voters have shown historically that they can jump on a bandwagon quickly. However I take responsibility for making a faulty judgment.
By the way, there's no comment from Angus-Reid or La Presse about the poll. In fact both organizations have purged any reference to the poll from their web sites. It's as if it never existed according to them. The only place I could get confirmation of their numbers were on sites that quoted them as in Branchez-vous. It's as if both organizations are determined to cover up the fiasco.
If you don't believe me, check out both the La Presse site and the Angus Reid site and do you own search.
Poof, the poll has disappeared.
Owning up to mistakes is an important step in reporting. I'm doing so today.
While La Presse rails on and on about the honesty of the Tremblay administration, perhaps they should take their own advice and come clean about the botched poll.
What dishonesty! Shame on La Presse and Angus Reid.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Health Update-- My Swine Flu experience
I am over the worst!
My fever has broken and I am on the path to recovery. I am not yet back to normal and am still suffering from a variety of ailments including stiffness, lethargy and headaches.
It is as the health officials promised - a couple of bad days and then recovery.
What they never mentioned is how terrible those couple of days are.
Do yourself a favour, run don't walk. Get the shot.
Incidentally, minutes after posting yesterday's piece of my Swine flu predicament, my blog was flooded by automated bots posting to the comments section, hawking all sorts of phony H1N1 remedies.
I removed them all, but sheesh, is there no decency out there?
My fever has broken and I am on the path to recovery. I am not yet back to normal and am still suffering from a variety of ailments including stiffness, lethargy and headaches.
It is as the health officials promised - a couple of bad days and then recovery.
What they never mentioned is how terrible those couple of days are.
Do yourself a favour, run don't walk. Get the shot.
Incidentally, minutes after posting yesterday's piece of my Swine flu predicament, my blog was flooded by automated bots posting to the comments section, hawking all sorts of phony H1N1 remedies.
I removed them all, but sheesh, is there no decency out there?
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
AHHHHHHH!!!!! I have Swine Flu!!!
After a weekend of celebrating that included attending a large family function at a downtown supper club, it was back to work Monday.
Everything was normal until I stopped to pump some gas at a Decarie Boulevard Shell station. I hadn't felt great that morning, but chalked it up to a hangover.
Having just completed the transaction, I returned to my car when I was slammed by a wave of nausea that literally knocked me down.
I started heaving and ran over to a patch of grass off to the side where I promptly puked my guts out. I sat in the drivers seat with the door open trying to regain my bearings, but the world was spinning badly. I threw up again, and again.
After a few minutes, I regained enough composure to turn my car around and go home, where a fever started to build until it hit 104° later that evening.
There was no doubt- I had contracted the dreaded H1N1 disease. WTF!!!!!
Like every other idiot, I assumed that Swine flu is what happens to someone else.
A couple of days in bed is what authorities told us to expect, but what they didn't warn us is how incredibly painful it is.
As I write this, my temperature is down to 101°, and stable but showing no sign of abating. While the worst is over, I'm shocked by how bad the ordeal of Swine flu is.
Monday night was pure Hell as I lay in bed suffering from fever induced hallucinations that made a bad LSD trip feel like a cakewalk.
Three day after getting sick, things are getting better but my condition remains ten times worse than any regular flu. The unremitting fever is the hardest part to deal with.
For most people, H1N1 it may not be life threatening, but it is terribly painful and debilitating.
If you're considering skipping the vaccine based on the fact that H1N1 is not that dangerous, think again.
Be afraid, be very afraid.
I've taken these few minutes of lucidity to cast a warning, but alas, as my head starts to spin again, I'm off to bed. I hope this nightmare is over soon!...
I shall post the rest of the week with stuff I previously prepared...
Everything was normal until I stopped to pump some gas at a Decarie Boulevard Shell station. I hadn't felt great that morning, but chalked it up to a hangover.
Having just completed the transaction, I returned to my car when I was slammed by a wave of nausea that literally knocked me down.
I started heaving and ran over to a patch of grass off to the side where I promptly puked my guts out. I sat in the drivers seat with the door open trying to regain my bearings, but the world was spinning badly. I threw up again, and again.
After a few minutes, I regained enough composure to turn my car around and go home, where a fever started to build until it hit 104° later that evening.
There was no doubt- I had contracted the dreaded H1N1 disease. WTF!!!!!
Like every other idiot, I assumed that Swine flu is what happens to someone else.
A couple of days in bed is what authorities told us to expect, but what they didn't warn us is how incredibly painful it is.
As I write this, my temperature is down to 101°, and stable but showing no sign of abating. While the worst is over, I'm shocked by how bad the ordeal of Swine flu is.
Monday night was pure Hell as I lay in bed suffering from fever induced hallucinations that made a bad LSD trip feel like a cakewalk.
Three day after getting sick, things are getting better but my condition remains ten times worse than any regular flu. The unremitting fever is the hardest part to deal with.
For most people, H1N1 it may not be life threatening, but it is terribly painful and debilitating.
If you're considering skipping the vaccine based on the fact that H1N1 is not that dangerous, think again.
Be afraid, be very afraid.
I've taken these few minutes of lucidity to cast a warning, but alas, as my head starts to spin again, I'm off to bed. I hope this nightmare is over soon!...
I shall post the rest of the week with stuff I previously prepared...
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
When are Reasonable Accommodations Unreasonable?
This week Montreal's daily La Presse published the results of a poll that sampled Quebeckers opinion on the 'Reasonable Accommodations" debate, as it is known in Quebec. The results were not unexpected, with a large majority against the idea of making any concessions to non-white or non-Christian minorities.
Ever since Quebec became home to a large amount of non-Catholic immigrants, friction has been building. The majority of Quebeckers believe that it is not only incumbent upon newcomers to use French as their primary language, but also to adopt the values of Quebec society as well.
What that means in practice is that immigrants are expected to give up the 'old ways' of their homelands and embrace 'Quebec' values and mores.
Last year, in response to a backlash against immigrants, the Quebec government set up a comission (BOUCHARD-TAYLOR) to look into the reasonable accomodation debate. The commission turned into a bit of a fiasco and became a forum for yahoos and racists to vent their rage at minorities and immigrants.
By the way, what is a reasonable accomodation?
Simply put, it is special treatment for an individual or group that is not afforded to the majority.
Here are some examples of what I'm sure you'll agree with me are reasonable accommodations;
Let's review the La Presse poll.
ACCORDING TO YOU, DOES QUEBEC AFFORD TOO MANY, TOO LITTLE OR JUST ABOUT THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS?
Too much 68%
Enough 16%
Not Enough 7%
Don't know 8%
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE BOUCHARD TAYLOR COMMISSION CLARIFIED THE SITUATION IN REGARDS TO REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS?
Yes 7%
No 72%
Uncertain 21%
DO YOU PERSONALLY MAKE ACCOMMODATIONS BASED ON RELIGION?
Almost every day 5%
A couple of times a month 9%
A couple of times a year 17%
Rarely 40%
Never 30%
SHOULD A PERSON BE ALLOWED TO WEAR A RELLIGIOUS MEDALLION...
IN SCHOOL? IN PUBLIC PLACES
Yes 19% Yes 35%
No 76% No 59%
Uncertain 5% Uncertain 7%
At WORK? IN HOSPITAL
Yes 19% Yes 25%
No 74% No 70%
Uncertain 7% Uncertain 5%
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT A DIFFERENT MENU CAN BE OFFERED IN A DAYCARE?
Yes 37%
No 57%
Uncertain 5%
....THAT A FEMALE DOCTOR BE PROVIDED UPON REQUEST?
Yes 37%
No 59%
Uncertain 4%
....THAT A MALE DRIVING INSTRUCTOR BE PROVIDED UPON REQUEST?
Yes 14%
No 81%
Uncertain 5%
....THAT BOYS AND GIRLS BE SEPARATED IN SWIMMING POOLS?
Yes 7%
No 90%
Uncertain 3%
....THAT A HOLIDAY FOR A NON-CHRISTIAN HOLIDAY BE PROVIDED?
Yes 34%
No 57%
Uncertain 9%
....THAT A PRAYER ROOM BE PROVIDED IN A PUBLIC BUILDING (CEGEP, UNIVERSITY, AT WORK ?)
Yes 20%
No 76%
Uncertain 4%
....THAT THE HIJAB BE ALLOWED TO BE WORN WHILE WORKING IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE?
Yes 64%
No 28%
Uncertain 8%
So how do you compare?
Let me finish today's post with a case of reasonable accommodation which I'll let you be the judge of;
A local mosque makes a request of city council to install loudspeakers into the minaret so that they can call people to prayers. You've all seen the scene on television where a loud droning voice is played over a loudspeaker ad nauseum. For a non-Muslim it's quite grating.
The Imam promises that out of respect for the community and as a compromise, they will only use the system once a week, on Friday's and sometimes on special occasions and holidays.
The council considers the request. One or two liberal councillors seem to be okay with the idea, but the majority are outraged.
"Let them keep their religion to themselves. Why bother the whole neighbourhood?"
"We're not the Middle East here!"
"It's an unacceptable intrusion."
"It's noise pollution"
..and so on and so on....
How would you vote?
If you are like most, you'd probably vote against the request. If you are of that mind I'd like you to consider this;
.
.
.
.
.
Should Church bells be banned?
What's reasonable to you, may not be reasonable at all. It's a matter of perspective and so the debate rages on.
Ever since Quebec became home to a large amount of non-Catholic immigrants, friction has been building. The majority of Quebeckers believe that it is not only incumbent upon newcomers to use French as their primary language, but also to adopt the values of Quebec society as well.
What that means in practice is that immigrants are expected to give up the 'old ways' of their homelands and embrace 'Quebec' values and mores.
Last year, in response to a backlash against immigrants, the Quebec government set up a comission (BOUCHARD-TAYLOR) to look into the reasonable accomodation debate. The commission turned into a bit of a fiasco and became a forum for yahoos and racists to vent their rage at minorities and immigrants.
By the way, what is a reasonable accomodation?
Simply put, it is special treatment for an individual or group that is not afforded to the majority.
Here are some examples of what I'm sure you'll agree with me are reasonable accommodations;
- Wheel-chaired bound people are provided exclusive use of specially designed bathrooms.
- Children and seniors who generally have less money than every one else are given discounts that others cannot share.
- Blind people may take their seeing-eye dogs into public buildings and on public transportation that ban animals.
Let's review the La Presse poll.
ACCORDING TO YOU, DOES QUEBEC AFFORD TOO MANY, TOO LITTLE OR JUST ABOUT THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS?
Too much 68%
Enough 16%
Not Enough 7%
Don't know 8%
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE BOUCHARD TAYLOR COMMISSION CLARIFIED THE SITUATION IN REGARDS TO REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS?
Yes 7%
No 72%
Uncertain 21%
DO YOU PERSONALLY MAKE ACCOMMODATIONS BASED ON RELIGION?
Almost every day 5%
A couple of times a month 9%
A couple of times a year 17%
Rarely 40%
Never 30%
SHOULD A PERSON BE ALLOWED TO WEAR A RELLIGIOUS MEDALLION...
IN SCHOOL? IN PUBLIC PLACES
Yes 19% Yes 35%
No 76% No 59%
Uncertain 5% Uncertain 7%
At WORK? IN HOSPITAL
Yes 19% Yes 25%
No 74% No 70%
Uncertain 7% Uncertain 5%
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT A DIFFERENT MENU CAN BE OFFERED IN A DAYCARE?
Yes 37%
No 57%
Uncertain 5%
....THAT A FEMALE DOCTOR BE PROVIDED UPON REQUEST?
Yes 37%
No 59%
Uncertain 4%
....THAT A MALE DRIVING INSTRUCTOR BE PROVIDED UPON REQUEST?
Yes 14%
No 81%
Uncertain 5%
....THAT BOYS AND GIRLS BE SEPARATED IN SWIMMING POOLS?
Yes 7%
No 90%
Uncertain 3%
....THAT A HOLIDAY FOR A NON-CHRISTIAN HOLIDAY BE PROVIDED?
Yes 34%
No 57%
Uncertain 9%
....THAT A PRAYER ROOM BE PROVIDED IN A PUBLIC BUILDING (CEGEP, UNIVERSITY, AT WORK ?)
Yes 20%
No 76%
Uncertain 4%
....THAT THE HIJAB BE ALLOWED TO BE WORN WHILE WORKING IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE?
Yes 64%
No 28%
Uncertain 8%
So how do you compare?
Let me finish today's post with a case of reasonable accommodation which I'll let you be the judge of;
A local mosque makes a request of city council to install loudspeakers into the minaret so that they can call people to prayers. You've all seen the scene on television where a loud droning voice is played over a loudspeaker ad nauseum. For a non-Muslim it's quite grating.
The Imam promises that out of respect for the community and as a compromise, they will only use the system once a week, on Friday's and sometimes on special occasions and holidays.
The council considers the request. One or two liberal councillors seem to be okay with the idea, but the majority are outraged.
"Let them keep their religion to themselves. Why bother the whole neighbourhood?"
"We're not the Middle East here!"
"It's an unacceptable intrusion."
"It's noise pollution"
..and so on and so on....
How would you vote?
If you are like most, you'd probably vote against the request. If you are of that mind I'd like you to consider this;
.
.
.
.
.
Should Church bells be banned?
What's reasonable to you, may not be reasonable at all. It's a matter of perspective and so the debate rages on.
Monday, November 2, 2009
101,000 Called Upon to Protest Supreme Court Decision - 60 Show Up.
In a piece entitled 101,000 Quebeckers in the Street retired FLQ terrorist Pierre Schneider called for a massive demonstration in front of the offices of Montreal lawyer Brent Tyler, the man who argued and won the Supreme Court decision overturning Quebec's Bill 104.French language zealots remain furious that the law that plugged a loophole in Bill 101, allowing families to circumvent the law that previously disqualified their children from receiving an English education, had been overturned.
While they rage at the Supreme Court, militants conveniently forget that the case had already been adjudicated by Quebec courts, (twice) with the families winning each time.
After the Quebec court of Appeals, the province's highest court, ruled against the government, there were no demonstrations at all.
Perhaps it makes sense. Who would protesters protest against?
But ever since the big bad Supreme Court of Canada confirmed the decision, it's off to the races for the fanatics.
It's time to blame the English!!!
If you are thinking that my headline calling Mr. Schneider a terrorist is a case of hyperbole or journalistic exaggeration, you are wrong.
Mr. Schneider is truly a retired FLQ terrorist who served time for the placement of a bomb which exploded in the hands of police officer Walter Leja, who was trying to dismantle it, in Westmount on May 18, 1963.Today Mr. Schneider is rehabilitated, yet unrepentant.
He is an editor at the Montreal daily newspaper "Le Journal de Montreal" and has shifted his support to the Réseau de Résistance du Québécois (RRQ,) one of Quebec's most militant sovereignist/French language groups.
His call for 101,000 demonstrators is symbolic, the reality is that these demonstrations usually bring out less than a couple of hundred people.
This time estimates of the crowd pegged the demonstrators at about 60, of which a fair number were undercover police officers.By the way, does it annoy you as much as it does me, that this unrepentant ex-terrorist is free?
Had he committed his terrorist act in the U.S. he'd still be making license plates.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)