Interview Sarah Palin

Remember about four-and-a-bit years ago, I downloaded Dadadodo, which I described at the time as a “word disassociator?” The program itself is a Markov chain generator/randomiser that works on sentence structures: in other words, given some text (speeches, poetry, blog posts, whatever – other kinds have been demonstrated to work on things like music) it will learn the frequencies in which words and punctuation follow other words and punctuation and use that to build resulting sentences.

Imagine the fun you could have if you took the combined speeches of any politician particularly famous for waffling through their answers. Like, say, US presidential election Republican party running mate Sarah Palin

Well, imagine no more – Interview Sarah Palin has you covered. Kick-starting paragraphs (“winding her up”) with particular topics (e.g. “Iraq and Afghanistan,” “John McCain,” etc.) sets off this fabulous little Markov-chain-speechbot. Even if you don’t understand even the theories of the mathematics, you can enjoy this site so long as you’ve got a suitable sense of humour around political waffling.

Six Pounds And Eighteen Pence

That’s how much better off I am per month than I was previously. Or, as I see it, three pints.

Thank you, Gordon Brown.

The Aber Masterplan

Have you seen the Aber Masterplan yet? The Welsh Development Agency/Welsh Assembly Government/Ceredigion County Council document that takes a SimCity-like approach to planning the future development of Aberystwyth.

No? You oughta. Here: download a copy [PDF].

Town Areas in the Aber Masterplan

It’s got some good bits. Re-routing some of the trunk roads to improve traffic flow and reduce dependence on the older, narrower roads through Llanbadarn and the town centre – good. Better use of Park & Ride schemes and a reorganisation of public transport – good. Reorganising parking spaces, making more space to park in the town centre and prioritising residents’ access to the parking spaces outside their houses – good. Better cycle lanes and cycleway connections – good. You see where I’m coming from.

And it’s got some… other bits. Moving the railway station quarter of a mile up the line and out of the town centre – not so good. Concrete everywhere – umm. Building a stadium – y’what?

A view of New Aberystwyth from the East

The whole thing’s filled with buzzphrases, like “The overall concept for this area is to create a new piece of town commensurate with that achieved in the Victorian period.” But with a bit of work, it’s possible to cut through the cruft and get to the key points of the proposal. Here are some of the more fascinating segments:

  • “Whilst a continuing University function for Old College is desirable, there are also possible complementary uses such as a high quality boutique hotel or art gallery.”
  • “Park Avenue could be developed as a positive, integrated part of town if the railway station was moved east to an area adjacent to the Vale of Rheidol Station.”
  • “Redeveloped football club site as high quality mixed use development developed on a grid pattern.”
  • “Mill Street car park development comprised of multistorey car park and retail units.”
  • “Redevelopment of cinema site.” (hint: it involves persuading the cinema to move elsewhere)

There’s a meeting open to the public in the WAG side of the Technium, on the marina, at 5:30 on Monday 10th December, so if you’d like to ask any questions about the plans, to enthuse or complain, or just to make your voice heard – in fact, if you have any opinion at all about these plans – you should come along and say your piece.

Further reading: Issue 10 of The Cambrian Snooze pokes fun at the Masterplan in it’s own way.

No Right To Complain

There are lots of good arguments as to why an individual should vote: perhaps I’ll write about some of those later, and talk about my own personal experience of the system. In this blog post, instead, I’m going to talk about a very bed argument for voting. It’s a very popular argument I’ve heard used by a great number of people who are in favour of compulsary (either at the legal level or just as a social pressure) voting. It’s a very popular argument, but it’s also a very weak argument. It goes something along the lines of this:

"If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain."

Over the remainder of this article, I’ll be taking apart this argument. To help me with the examples, I’ll be using a fictional character called John Voter. John is a resident of the United Kingdom, or a similar Western democracy. His political views are pretty moderate, and he isn’t a member of any particular party, but he’s open to new ideas and arguments: simply put, he’s the ultimate floating voter.

No One Candidate

Suppose the electorate is completely split between the candidates – every candidate gets exactly the same number of votes: there is only one ballot paper left to count, and it’s John’s. It’s a highly unfeasible scenario, but it serves for our purposes. In this scenario, John is responsible for choosing which candidate wins the election. This seems to some like an ideal oppertunity for many voters – a chance to choose exactly which candidate is elected – but not to John. You see, John can’t decide who to vote for. He likes the Red Party candidate’s promises of tax cuts, but he doesn’t approve of their foreign policies. Meanwhile, the Blue Party would increase taxes, but have foreign policies that he prefers. No single candidate is suited to John’s opinion. In the end, he flips a coin and votes for one of these two candidates.

Does John have a right to complain? He alone explicitly chose which candidate was elected, but he doesn’t approve of everything they’re going to do in their term. Does he have a right to criticise the candidate who he put in office. Think carefully before you answer.

If you answer no, then you’re saying that even if you do vote, you have no right to complain if your candidate is elected. It doesn’t actually matter whether or not John’s vote "makes the difference." More likely, he’s part of a larger group of people (all of the people who cast their vote the same way as him) who elected somebody who didn’t perfectly reflect their views, but reflected them more closely than any of the other candidates did.

More likely you answered yes; in this situation, where John singly "chooses" the politician who represents him, he still has a right to complain (you might even think that he has more right). So let’s take a different example. This one’s less hypothetical.

The votes are likely to be unevenly split amongst the candidates, just like a real election. There are candidates who will get only a few hundred votes, and there are candidates who will get tens of thousands. John still doesn’t know who to vote for, but – in this more realistic scenario – his vote will almost certainly not make a difference to which candidate is elected (note that I didn’t say that his vote will make no difference – perhaps I’ll look at arguments relating to whether votes "count" in a future blog post). Perhaps his chosen candidate will get in, or perhaps they won’t. Does he still have a right to complain?

Your answer is probably yes. Yes, John has every right to complain that his views are not being reflected, because no matter who he votes for – in fact, no matter who wins! – he will not be completely satisfied, because no politician is able to completely satisfy the things he cares about. He has chosen (either by concious decision or by flipping a coin, as before) to align himself with one of several viewpoints, neither of which he wholeheartedly agrees with. It doesn’t matter if he votes for one of the two tens-of-thousands-of-votes candidates in his constituancy, or if he votes for one of the less-popular candidates… the candidate that is elected remains the same (remember: I’m still not saying his vote doesn’t count). He’s still able, and probably feels the need, to complain about his elected representative.

So what’s the difference if he puts a blank ballot paper into the box? He was equally unhappy with all of the viable candidates anyway. And if he’s going to do that, he might as well not even bother going to the polling station, and make better use of his own time – he could draft a letter to be sent to the winning candidate, outlining his views, or he could write a blog post about why he isn’t voting, or he could go out with his mates for a pint. They’re all valid uses for his time (it is, after all, his time), and the net result is still the same as if he voted: a candidate he doesn’t 100% care for is elected, and he feels the need to complain about it.

And what right does anybody have to try to take away somebody’s right to complain. Complaining, otherwise known as "free speech," is a more important right than the right to vote. When you speak, you can influence people, whether they’re the unwashed masses or the people in power. When you vote, all you do is align yourself with somebody who represents less of the ideals you disagree with than any of the (limited) alternatives.

To say "if you don’t vote, you’ve got no right to complain," says a lot about the people who say it, though. When people say those words, what they’re actually implying that that they feel your right to complain should be dependent upon your duty to vote. On a personal level, they’re saying, "I feel that mandatory voting is important, and I plan to socially stigmatise you – by not listening to your complaints – as a way to try to coerce you into voting."

It’s sad that some people feel that the act of voting is more important than thinking about politics; that it’s more important for you to make an uninformed vote than it is for you to think about the changes you actually want to see, and help bring them about. It’s sad that everybody who "doesn’t vote" – from the man who just can’t be bothered and doesn’t care what happens (more on this in another post, as well, I think) to the anarchist who doesn’t want to support the system he opposes – gets lumped into a group of "apathetic voters."

The Personal Bit

Personally, I’ve very rarely felt the need to nominate a particular candidate as a preference over the others: most elections, I spoil a ballot, because no single candidate has a clear lead in my mind. I do, however, write to (well, usually e-mail and fax these days) politicians from time to time to try to persuade them of the validity of my viewpoints. I’d be more likely to vote in more elections if we had a better electoral system, such as STV. I’m not a non-voter (nor am I politically apathetic), I’m just, like John, unimpressed by most of the choices in most of the elections I participate in. The Liberal Democrats almost won my vote in the upcoming Welsh Assembly elections, but I challenged a representative of them on a couple of key issues I feel strongly about, and they seem to be adamant that they’re right (and I feel otherwise). It doesn’t look likely that I’ll find a candidate that reflects how I feel significantly better than any other, so instead of voting for a candidate, I’ll write a few letters (to whoever wins).

In the long run, if the system works, and politicians are at least slightly in it for the purpose of representing the views of their citizens, I’m having more of an effect than your average voter. If the system doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter anyway.

If I get the time, I’ll be talking about some of the (better) arguments for reasons to vote over the next couple of weeks. Don’t forget, those of you in Wales, Welsh Assembly polling day is May 3rd.

Lib Dems In Ceredigion

Lib Dems win in Ceredigion over Plaid Cymru, by 219 votes, after a recount. Our little election party just took off…

More Flash: “Second Term”

Jon has posted to his blog about "Second Term", JibJab‘s most recent parody of the American policial system (you’ll remember It’s Good To Be In D.C. and This Land, which I blogged about earlier). In any case, the versions you’ll find on JibJab and Yahoo are surrounded by advertisements and can’t easily be resized (hey; if you’ve got the processing power to run it full-screen, do so!), so I’ve made a copy of it here for you to watch.

CV Of George Bush

[this post was damaged during a server failure on Sunday 11th July 2004, and it has not been possible to recover it]

[it was partially recovered on 13 October 2018]

This one’s doing the rounds of the internet, but it made me smile so I’m posting it here…


RESUME – GEORGE W. BUSH
EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE


LAW ENFORCEMENT:

  • I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1976 for driving under the influence of alcohol. I pled guilty, paid a fine, and had my driver’s license suspended for 30 days. My Texas driving record has been”lost” and is not available.

MILITARY:

  • I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL. I refused to take a drug test or answer any questions about my drug use. By joining the Texas Air National Guard, I was able to avoid combat duty in Vietnam.

COLLEGE:

  • I graduated from Yale University with a low C average. I was a cheerleader.

PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:

  • I ran for U.S. Congress and lost. I began my career in the oil business in Midland, Texas, in 1975. I bought an oil company, but couldn’t find any oil in Texas. The company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock. I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took…

Daddy, Why Did We Have To Attack Iraq

Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
Because they had weapons of mass destruction.

But the inspectors didn’t find any weapons of mass destruction.
That’s because the Iraqis were hiding them.

And that’s why we invaded Iraq?
Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.

But after we invaded them, we STILL didn’t find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?
That’s because the weapons are so well hidden. Don’t worry, we’ll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.

Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
To use them in a war, silly.

I’m confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn’t they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
Well, obviously they didn’t want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.

That doesn’t make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?
It’s a different culture. It’s not supposed to make sense.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
Well, you know, it doesn’t matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.

And what was that?
Even if Iraq didn’t have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.

Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?
Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.

Kind of like what they do in China?
Don’t go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.

So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it’s a good country, even if that country tortures people?
Right.

Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.

Isn’t that exactly what happens in China?
I told you, China is different.

What’s the difference between China and Iraq?
Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba’ath party, while China is Communist.

Didn’t you once tell me Communists were bad?
No, just Cuban Communists are bad.

How are the Cuban Communists bad?
Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.

Like in Iraq?
Exactly.

And like in China, too?
I told you, China’s a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.

How come Cuba isn’t a good economic competitor?
Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.

But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn’t that help the Cubans become capitalists?
Don’t be a smart-ass.

I didn’t think I was being one.
Well, anyway, they also don’t have freedom of religion in Cuba.

Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he’s not really a legitimate leader anyway.

What’s a military coup?
That’s when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.

Didn’t the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.

Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.

Didn’t you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.

Why did we invade Afghanistan?
Because of what they did to us on September 11th.

What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
Well, on September 11th, nineteen men – fifteen of them Saudi Arabians – hijacked our airplanes and flew three of them into buildings, killing over 3,000 Americans.

So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.

Aren’t the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people’s heads and hands?
Yes, that’s exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people’s heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.

Didn’t the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.

Fighting drugs?
Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.

How did they do such a good job?
Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.

So, when the Taliban cut off people’s heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people’s heads and hands off for other reasons?
Yes. It’s OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people’s hands for growing flowers, but it’s cruel if they cut off people’s hands for stealing bread.

Don’t they also cut off people’s hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
That’s different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.

Don’t Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.

What’s the difference?
The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman’s body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman’s body except for her eyes and fingers.

It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
Now, don’t go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.

But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.
Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.

Who trained them?
A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.

Was he from Afghanistan?
Uh… no; he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.

I seem to recall he was our friend once.
Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.

Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.

So the Soviets – I mean, the Russians – are now our friends?
Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we’re mad at them now. We’re also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn’t help us invade Iraq either.

So the French and Germans are evil, too?
Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.

Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn’t do what we want them to do?
No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.

But wasn’t Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
Well, yeah. For a while.

Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.

Why did that make him our friend?
Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.

Isn’t that when he gassed the Kurds?
Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.

So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
Most of the time, yes.

And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
Sometimes that’s true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.

Why?
Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America’s side, anyone who opposes war is a godless un-American Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?

I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
Yes

But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.

So basically, what you’re saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night, dear.

AvAngel.com Censorship Lifted

After a bit of a battle between Information Services at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth, and I, resulting in the semipermanent blocking of the Unversity’s right to see www.penbryn-hall.co.uk, and the temporary blocking of AvAngel.com (Woohoo! I’m officially censored by the University), access to the site from the University’s network is now re-opened. Thanks to everybody who gave me the support I needed to go and tell them where to shove it…

Cool Thing Of The Day

Cool And Interesting Thing Of The Day To Do At The University Of Wales, Aberystwyth, #40:

Fail to get elected as one of the two student representatives of module CS12320 (Concepts In Programming). What else could I expect? I was nominated against my will, gave an awe-inspiring speech, that declared that “if I get this position, I’ll slaughter every last one of you with a pick-axe” brought up the issue that “hell – I’m not even representative of myself; why do you want me to represent you lot?”, and made clear “I want this role as little as you want me to have it!”. I think they got the idea. I recieved a grand total of 0 votes, and that includes the ones from the people who nominated me (who, after hearing my speech, voted for somebody else). Victory

The ‘cool and interesting things’ were originally published to a location at which my “friends back home” could read them, during the first few months of my time at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth, which I started in September 1999. It proved to be particularly popular, and so now it is immortalised through the medium of my weblog.

Cool Thing Of The Day

Cool And Interesting Thing Of The Day To Do At The University Of Wales, Aberystwyth, #38:

Recieve an e-mail criticising the way you send your e-mails. It appears to be from some big-headed student, who thinks they know it all (which they can’t, ‘cos then they’d know that I already knew that they didn’t know <sigh>, which is slightly self-defeating). Set them straight with a well-placed flame, and bite them by e-mail. Later, while filing their e-mail, check their signature, and realise that you’ve just accidently flamed the President of the Students Union!!! AARRGGGHHHHH!

The ‘cool and interesting things’ were originally published to a location at which my “friends back home” could read them, during the first few months of my time at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth, which I started in September 1999. It proved to be particularly popular, and so now it is immortalised through the medium of my weblog.