Skip to main content

Everybody was wrong

Milliband, head of the communists,
 lost everything last night

It’s like the day after the party, and everybody has a headache.
In the newspapers today across the countries of Britain and America, there is mortification, hand wringing, and confusion. All the polls were wrong, very, very wrong. The elections for Prime Minister yesterday was predicted by every metric, every number, and every one either put the Labor and Tory parties at neck to neck, or Labor just a little bit ahead.
Well, as it turned out, the British people did trust their Prime minister, and were thankful that during his time in office he has created a thousand new jobs a day, and they liked the fact that he promises by 2017 to let them vote on whether they want to stay members of the European Union.
Labor lost so bad that the head of the party, Ed Milliband, resigned. The Liberal Democrats lost so bad that the head of their party, Nick Clegg, resigned. UKIP lost so bad, holding on to only one seat that the head of their party, Nigel Farrage, resigned. That guy didn’t even win his own seat.
The Tories beat everybody. They beat everyone so bad that they don’t even need to form an alliance with another party. They have more than the majority necessary, something no one thought they would get, to rule on their own, without having to care what any of the other parties thought.
Just yesterday people were heralding the end of the two party system in Britain. This morning they are wondering where they went wrong. It’s sort of like when Mayweather got in the ring with Pacman. All the hype and nothing happened, the guy on top stayed on top.
The good news is that this time, there is no one to arbitrarily decide that suddenly the contest never happened, and the Tories can get back to what they have been doing. Resorting a certain amount of freedom in Britain, moving the country more right of center, and fixing an economy damaged from 13 years under Labor.

Andrew C. Abbott

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

Create Your Own Social Networking Site

Create Your Own Social Networking Site JCOW: Ethical Hacking Top 10 reasons to choose Jcow:- 1. Handle more traffic - Clean codes and Dynamic caching can lower the CPU load and  speed up your website. 2 Make your site more interactive - Well designed Jcow applications help you members to connect and communicate with others more effectively. 3 Add questions to the Registration Form - You can add new member fields, which will be displayed to the registration form, profile form, and the member browsing form. 4 Easily share stuff - Within the AJAX sharing Box, your members can publish status,  photos, videos, and blogs. 5 Customize and Extend your Jcow Network - A Jcow network consists of core apps(like "Friends" and "Messages") and optional apps(like "Blogs" and ""Videos"). You can enable/disable optional apps. You can also develop your own apps. 6 Every profile could be Unique - Members can customize their own profile theme and  add music play...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Problem of Abstraction in Definitions of Data Objects

I think there is a major problem in not being able to understand and work with different levels of abstraction.  By "abstraction" in this sense I mean one concept system that somehow describes or defines (not merely relates to) another concept system.  I think this is a big problem for definitions in data models. Let us take an example in a retail business such as mortgage banking: Customer Name.  Customer Name exists in the business.  They use it all the time.  Maybe it is sometimes called Borrower Name, but the concept is the same.  This is the Level 1 abstraction. Now let us think of data values in a column in a table that holds Customer Name.  These data values are stored as a code of 1's and 0's.  Of course these bits are rendered into something we can read.  However, this is not the same as the Customer Name in the business.  I worked for a place where they prefixed the name of anyone who had recently left with "ZZZ"....
Post a Comment
Read more

The Humpty-Dumpty Principle in Definitions

In dealing with empty concepts, we came across the issue that if somebody uses a term that potentially has an unintelligible definition, they are likely to defend themselves by quickly making up some kind of definition.   I strongly suspect that in such cases, the usage of the term will be inconsistent with the definition.  Which brings us to Humpty-Dumpty. Lewis Carroll (Rev. Charles Lutwidge Dodgson) is best known for his children's' books Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass .  It is in the latter that Humpty Dumpty - an argumentative egg perched on a wall has the following exchange with Alice: 'And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!' `I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"' `But "glory" doesn't mean "...
Post a Comment
Read more