cheapesthostings2

Another interesting piece from the Cato Institute.

So the election results are in. Of the 308 parliament seats at stake, the Conservatives won the largest number, 124, so they will form a minority government. How do the seat counts compare with the popular vote? Well the two leading parties won a somewhat larger share of the seats than their share of the vote. The Conservatives won 40.3% of the seats with 36.3% of the vote, while the Liberals won 33.4% of the seats with 30.2% of the vote. On the other hand, the NDP got just 9.4% of the seats even though they had 17.5% of the vote. The Bloc Québécois benefited the most from our first-past-the-post system, winning 16.6% of the seats with just 10.5% of the votes. And the Green Party won no seats at all, even though they got 4.5% of the vote! I haven't looked at the breakdown of popular vote here in the province of Ontario, but here's a barchart from today's issue of the newspaper Dose. Although the title suggests that it shows popular vote, it actually shows the number of ri...

Like most people, I have investments, largely in the form of mutual funds. So that means I'm supporting and profiting (at least in the long run) from the companies whose stocks make up the funds. And which companies are those? I haven't got a clue. But what if some of them are tobacco companies? How about companies that are major polluters? Companies that don't treat their workers well (unsafe working conditions, unions not allowed, etc.)? Companies that manufacture weapons or--and this is trickier--weapons components? Obviously the list could go on and on ... So what to do? Three choices I can think of are (1) don't invest; (2) invest to maximize profits (subject to an acceptable level of risk) and then donate some of the profits to worthy causes; and (3) invest "ethically"; Option (1) doesn't seem sensible. First of all, I don't think I have an ethical problem with investing per se. In fact it seems like a good thing to me. For example, venture capit...

I just uncovered an interesting tidbit: Gilles Duceppe's disparaging comments about statisticians were pre-planned--see the update to my earlier post. And yet: "The sad thing about relying on blogs for information about political choices is that they are high on opinion and low on fact and preach to the choir rather than address issues factually, substantively and inclusively." So says Michael Bugeja, a professor (of journalism, apparently) at Iowa State, as quoted today in an unperceptive Globe and Mail article titled "Wired up, plugged in, zoned out". Bugeja goes on to say that "We need print newspapers to do that [address issues factually, substantively and inclusively] because the issues requiring factual analysis are more complex than ever and cannot be stated simply in a TV sound bite or Internet news brief." Huh? I thought we were talking about blogs, not TV sound bites. Ah, yes, God forbid anyone rely on blogs and news via the Internet. We nee...

Since I've been thinking a bit about propaganda, let me share a thought. For some time now I've been bothered by public health campaigns (or other education campaigns) that don't tell the truth. One example (suggested by my sister-in-law) is the much-mocked "This is your brain on drugs" tv ad. It's a striking visual metaphor: cracking an egg onto a hot frying pan. But is it truthful? It refers to "drugs" (presumably illicit), but which ones? What's the evidence that they "fry" your brain? Perhaps your brain has to already be fried before you'd consider using them. Or perhaps some of the drugs actually enhance your brain. But I don't think that truthfulness was the point of the ad. It was meant to convince, not to genuinely inform. And how do you convince people? By using the techniques perfected by Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Propaganda. Ok, maybe that's a cheap shot, but I think propaganda is a dirty business. As ...

I'm watching the Canadian leaders debate, and just heard Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe say "We don't need more statisticians." Of course I can't let that pass without comment! First, the context. The debate was focusing on healthcare. Healthcare in Canada is governed by the Canada Health Act, through which the federal government ensures that the provinces and territories meet certain requirements, such as free and universal access to insured health care. (That description of the Act is taken from this helpful overview .) Duceppe noted that under Liberal governments, the number of federal government employees in healthcare-related areas (presumably in Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada) has increased considerably. But delivery of healthcare (including paying for nurses and doctors) is a provincial responsibility. Duceppe argued that what is needed is more nurses and doctors, not more federal employees such as ... statisticians (among othe...

PR can mean public relations or proportional representation . I suggest that we reserve PR for the latter, and abandon the term "public relations" in favour of the more honest descriptor propaganda . (Incidentally, I'm planning to go the Canadian War Museum tomorrow to see an exhibit called "Weapons of Mass Dissemination: The Propaganda of War". It was developed by the Wolfsonian-Florida International University and they have a virtual exhibition you can visit. Update 9Jan2006 : As part of the exhibition, the Canadian War Museum also has a really good section on their website about Canadian Wartime Propaganda .) Now, back to proportional representation, which is getting lots of media play these days. John Ibbitson recently wrote an interesting piece in the Globe & Mail titled "PR: Democracy you can really trust". (I would link to the online copy, but it's only available to subscribers.) He writes: "The argument most often put forward ...

When I tell people that I'm a statistician, the usual response is a blank stare. Explaining that I work with statistics only makes matters worse. Those who have been exposed to statistics at university often blurt out "I had to take a statistics course -- and I hated it!" What they remember of the course is mostly that it was boring and there were a lot of formulas. Those who have had no formal exposure to statistics seem to think it might have to do with collecting and tabulating figures, like sports statistics or national economic figures. This isn't completely off the mark, but by itself it's a poor description of what statisticians do. And about half the time, mention of "statistics" elicits the helpful response: "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics!" (Often attributed to Mark Twain, but apparently originally from Benjamin Disraeli.) Something of a variant on this is the claim that "You can prove anything with statistics!"...