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

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...

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"....

The Problems of Pluto - 2: What is a Definition Authority?

In a previous post (http://definitionsinsemantics.blogspot.com/2011/11/evolution-of-definitions-problem-of.html) the topic of the IAU's 2006 redefinition of the term "planet" was discussed (see http://www.iau.org/public_press/news/detail/iau0603/).  There are many topics relevant to definitions surrounding this event - one of them is the problem of authority.  The International Astronomical Union (IAU) is the organization that came up with the new definition of "planet".  Does this make it an authority?  It does if we define "authority" as "a source of a definition that publishes, and administers, and supports this definition".  However, the term "authority" carries emotional content also.  "Authority" can imply (a) a role of active enforcement; (b) an obligation of obedience upon the body politic.  These implications exist because "authority" is a term that defines many concepts, and some of them have to do with...