Yani's Blog

There has been a lot of discussion regarding the nature of our society, milticultramism, discrimination and immigration. I know, this covers a wide ranging discussion over many areas and I do not hope to discuss the entire field in a short blog entry. What I wish to talk about is our level of tolerance and how this is reflected in our attitudes given world events.

There are more views on these subjects as there are people who hold these views. The topic is wuite divisive but I believe that many people have not really thought through the rationality of their position – and of course the trivializing of the arguments by media and politicians does not help. Not that I blame either of these groups of people. The media wants to sell advertising space and if they can drive up the emotional thermometer then their job is done. Politicians only want your vote so it is in their interest to appeal to the lowest common denominator. No – it is us who are to blame for not raising the level of debate and not demanding that the issues be addressed properly and not to treat us in this shabby manner.

In helping us understand the issues regarding immigration are there historical precedents? Well, yes there are. In the 19th century there was an influx of Chinese immigrants as a result (I believe) of the gold rush. At the time these people were ostracized and isolated. They more or less kept to themselves and had difficulty integrating. Where are their descendants? Many returned of course but many remained and are now contributing to modern society. And then there was the influx of Italians and Greeks post war. I can still remember the criticism that they were taking Australian’s jobs, they refused to speak English, they kept to their own communities. As a child I recall the Italian and Greek areas and the separation of the groups. In reality the fear was greatly overblown and I also remember the relationships that we had with a number of first and second generation Greeks and Italians, only to discover that they were just like us, the same hopes and fears, the same dreams but simply expressed in different cultural terms. They were not so different. And the Jobs? well the injection into our society of a large number of hard working people boosted the economy and strengthened it rather than otherwise.

What of today. There was recently a report of a protest against an Islamic school. This is typical of the attitude of many Australians. Is this type of action reasonable? As a Christian I support the principle of Christian schools, which personally I consider quite reasonable. If I were to live in a country where the population were predominantly Muslim how would I feel if they protested my wanting to open a Christian school? In more general terms, what should the behavioral criteria be for immigrants?

We have laws which have evolved over many years. These laws describe unacceptable behaviour and the punishment for unacceptable behaviour. They describe the constitution and maintenance of institutions such as courts, religious organisations, and schools to name a few. Now the question is should we make demands over and above the minimum requirements of the law? Are there additional rules that we should enforce other than those that apply to the general population. What is it about the recent influx of immigrants that make them different from the previous migrations? Our laws have been sufficient for previous generations and I see no weakness in those laws which make the current situation any different. As long as the rule of law is maintained then they are free to be who they want. That is what the law is for – to regulate unacceptable behaviour – not to change the nature of a person.

The law is not about who you are – it is about what you do and as long as you obey the law you should be free to be who you want to be.

This has been a long discussion with good points on both sides but how consistent have the arguments been. Should we engage with people with whom we disagree in order to influence their ideas or should we isolate them in order not to be tainted and to indicate our disapproval.

For many years we had no ties with South Africa because of their racial discrimination. Did this make a scrap of difference? Would it have made any difference if we had engaged?

Nixon decided that isolating China was counterproductive so opened up a dialogue. Has this helped with the human rights violations? I am not sure but it has certainly helped China industrially.

Personally I think engagement is more often a good thing than otherwise but I have no proof, just a perception. Of course there are exceptions where there is clearly nothing to be gained for either party and something to be lost but in general isolation is not really helpful in my opinion.

So then, if a Christian is invited to address a group of people with whom he has a fundamental difference of opinion what should he do? Should he engage and attempt to influence them in order to enlighten them or should he isolate them. Should that not be his decision as long as his attitude is clearly stated?

In recent days both the prime minister and Peter Costello have been criticised – for what – for meeting with a person who spoke at a group of people who were self confessed anti-semites. So what was the PM,s and the treasurer’s sin? Association… well the PM associates with the Chinese government who engage in terrible human rights abuses. Is he being criticised for that? Why not? I have heard Danny Naliah speak on several occasions and far from neive he is intelligent and astute, but neither is he an anti-semite but he is generous and tolerant. If anyone can engage minds and hearts to open them to a more tolerant attitude then Danny is that man. I think we should applaud him rather than criticise him and I urge the Prime Minster and the Treasurer not to back away from this one but to call the critics to task for their hyprocrasy.

Several weeks ago we had the privilege of eating at the Blanchtown Pub, a small hostelery about two hours north of Adelaide. We were on our way to Renmark where Liesa had two days weekend work.

Now Blanchtown is a small country town located on a very busy road so we thought that it was a resonable bet for a nice bub meal. How wrong we were. As a result of our experience there we have decided to inaugurate a new method of classifyng eating establishments. In short it is the tattoo. If you meat all of the criteria by which the Blanchtown pub is known and justly famous then you receive 10 tattoo.

Here are the criteria,

Cuisine, entertainment, atmosphere, service and environment.

Cusine -  The more sparse the fare the more the tattoos. Schnizel, chips (frozen especially) lumpy mash, grissly roast and tough steak all rate extra points. I have to say in all fairness that I was able to actualy consume some of the powdery chips and several small portions of the gristle that passed as steak. The rancid butter made up for the edibility of the “steak”.

Entertainment – Chook raffles always go down well, especially with vocal patrons who utter inarticulate interjections as their name is called. Also bingo with decrepit wooden balls is a big winner.

Atmosphere – bare tables with remains of several days dining, moist carpet (from the spillt beer) and  buggs falling into the meal from the bug zapper are a definite winner. The patrons can almost constitute a category by themselves. Strong family resemblances help, and multiple relationships per family member both contribute. If the entire pub clientel (except for the tourists) appear to have the same family features then you are in to the semis without dropping a set.

Service – If the waitress is picking her nose at the table you are on to a winner immediately. In our case the tattoos were earnt  when we had to wait an hour and a half for our meals. Surly disposition and insulting behaviour all add to the experience.

Finally environment. For this you need a musty smell, rancid fatty smell from the kitchen which are all good. Dirty walls and ceiling, local TV and/or Keeno on the 17″ TV add to the score. Any appearance of a plasma or LCD TV detract but add points if the aspect ratio is incorrect and if they are all tuned to some looser sports program like WWF with the sound above the threshold of pain, especially if it is mingled with the local country music station.

Blanchtown pub needless to say gets full marks in every category and receives the complete compliment of ten tattoos.

Conclusion – avoid at all costs. Starvation seems to me a perfectly reasonable alternative.

This article about a law recently passed in Queensland that allowed for retrial under certain circumstances is yet another power shift away from the individual to the state.

That people do not understand the reason for protection against double jeopardy is indicated by the hysteria around the issue. What people do not realise is that we are handing yet more power to the state and biasing the judicial system away from the individual.

A few weeks ago I was wondering what ever happened to the suspense thriller. Wonder no more.

Michael Clayton is a legal Mr Fix-it for a law firm whose services are farmed out to whatever law firm requires them. His job is to find solutions for whatever tight legal difficulty they find them selves in, and he is very good at his job.

The movie follows several days in his life where he is faced with more than typical challenges.

At 2 hours this movie is just the right length with a precise balance of humour, suspense and plot, no so long to get stodgy but just long enough to explore the intracies of the plot without giving anything away. It is plot driven and executes the plot flawlessly with a very well crafted screen play.
The cinematography, score, casting and acting all come together brilliantly to make this one of the great modern suspense thrillers in the Hitchcock tradition.

One viewing is not enough and I will be going back for a second bite. This has become one of my rare five star movies.

I was reading a blog recently and the writer was discussing congnitive dissonence. This is where a person holds a quite an irational position and has no qualms with this irational position. In other words that person can hold two vastly opposing views in their mind without blinking an eyelid.

Let me give you a for instance. One of the reasons that the US invaded Iraq was that they tortured people. The US supreme court recently dismissed a case brought by a German citizen against the CIA for torture on the grounds of national security. Surely Sadam could have argued national security quite cogently? The primary reason that the US invaded Iraq was that it had weapons of mass destruction. Which country holds the geatest number of weapons of mass destruction? Now this is not the interesting part. There is a certain mindset amongst some US citizens that would argue that the above statements means that I think Israel should be wiped off the map. That I am disloyal to my own troops serving in Iraq. Further I have been told that when I express an opinion on US affairs that it is none of my business. In fact this is precicesly what the US supremem court did to the German citiizen who claimed to be
tortured by the CIA. In fact the US which was founded on the principle of equality has perpetrated some gross human rights violations against citizens of many countries for many years, not only since the tragic incidents on the 11th of September. That was just another excuse to perpetrata yet more human rights violations.

Unfortunately this is just another example of that wise statement “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely”. The good news is that the power of the US will fade – the bad news is there will be yet another world empire to take its place that may have even more power and be even more corrupt.

I read with horror this article in a local paper. It is at times like this that I envy the citizens of the US where they would have to amend the constitution to pass legislation with such far reaching consequences.

The statements of the Premier are full of arrant nonsense and reflect an abysmal ignorance of the reason that the protection against double jeopardy has survived for 800 years.

Let me look at some of Mr Rann’s statements.

“…the changes reflected advances in DNA technology used to bring so-called cold cases before the courts.” Technology is hardly a new thing. Forensic science is a relatively old discipline. How is DNA different from say fingerprint evidence, or any other advance we have seen in the last 100 years. What makes DNA matching special? Absolutely nothing. The same legal principles apply, the same rules of evidence. Sure we have another string to the bow of forensic science but it has many strings and DNA is but one. We speak as if technology is a new thing, it is hardly new and is no excuse to trample on human rights.

“…the 800-year-old legal principle…” It is 800 years old for good reason. This is somehow turned into a pejorative.

“It is important that the law changes to reflect the changes in technology,” No argument there but this is not a law that relates to technology it is a law that relates to the balancing of the state against the individual in order to bias the judicial system in favour of the weaker party. Tis was the reason for the principle and that has not changed regardless of the many changes in forensic technology in the last 100 years.

“It doesn’t make sense to hang on to a law that goes back hundreds of years if it doesn’t apply to present circumstances.” Again a reasonable statement. But has anything changed in terms of the relative power of the state verses the individual? I think not. The reason for the existence of this principle has not changed.

“It makes no sense to me that if someone gets off on a particular case and then fresh evidence becomes available, DNA or otherwise, they literally get away with murder.” Now we are getting close to the real reason for this change. It has nothing to do with technology – that is simply a smokescreen.

The real reason for this change is the existence of a few high profile cases which have become emotionally charged. I am not sure who said it but the statement “I would rather see one thousand guilty people go free than see one innocent person punished” is one with which I wholeheartedly agree. I know that the victims of crime are extremely vocal and feel cheated when they perceive that the perpetrator goes unpunished but that is the price we pay for a free society where there is a necessary balance between justice and human rights. These principles are there as much for the victim as for anybody else.

The reason for the protections of double jeopardy, habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence have nothing to do with technology, they are to balance the enormous power of the state against the relative impotence of the individual. In fact the improvements in technology bias the system towards the state not away from it and is even more reason for maintaining the ancient principles that have served us for hundreds of years and makes the justice system we have unparalleled in history in terms of fairness.

I have said it before and I will say it again. We erode these principles at our peril. They jeopardise the rights of the very people who, in their ignorance are clamoring for their abolition.

When I was a young student in University in the 70s I remember a rich friend of mine had an HP 67 they he wore prominently on his belt, and was I jealous?

This little beauty was fully programmable, had a card reader on which the user could store programs and data, fully scientific and could fit in the users pocket. An amazing beast. Of course I was far too poor to be able to afford one of these but I could dream.

Later on when I was studying electronics I was working so I could indulge my dreams and so bought a second hand HP 41C.

This was nothing short of extraordinary. Unheard of computing power in your pocket. Similar to the 67 but with a linger battery life, full alpha numeric keyboard and display, full range of peripherals such as card reader, data cartridge, printer just to name a few. This was my pride and joy until it was stolen. However, the insurance company bought me a brand new replacement and I managed to get a discount through a collect lecturer so I got myself the HP 41CX with a card reader, a supply of cards, and a number of modules.

My next calculator was the HP 15C.

This little beauty was capable of complex number calculations and capable of solving a 4×4 complex matrix. Now to those who are not scientists, or electronics engineers that means nothing, but let me assure you that in 1981 that was incredible. I would sit in electronics tutorials with my trusty 15C and churn out my answers in minutes whilst my fellow students were ploughing through the dozens of calculations on their “scientific” calculators only to make a small arithmetic mistake in the first few minutes and have to do it all over again.

Unfortunately that too was stolen, and never replaced.

Well 35 yearsa later and HP are celebrating the event with the release of a brand new calculator, the HP 35S in memory of the origonal HP 35.

This little beauty encapsulates all that is fine about the HP scientific calculators and in real terms it is about a tenth of the price of the original.

The HP has always been the leader in scientific calculators with the finest examples being the HP 67, HP 41C, HP 15C. There have been a few mistakes along the way but their attenting to customer needs has made them the world leader.

See the HP site here, and the HP 35S here.

Thanks to Engadget for the heads up.

The images above are from The Museum of HP Calculators and from Engadget.