Political barometer predicts church attendances

IF, and that's a mighty BIG IF, new research from Northwestern University and Duke University holds water, then the State of NSW should have already seen a mass conversion of its good citizens to some form of faith if they were not already believers.

Professors Aaron Kay and Adam Galinsky and their colleagues examined whether changing political climates can drive religious belief, especially faith in a controlling or interventionist deity. They found that beliefs toward God and the government can help satiate the same psychological need for structure and order and are interchangeable with one another.

The study suggests that when a government weakens, people’s faith in a higher power becomes stronger.

According to Kay, an associate professor at Duke University, “Although there are undoubtedly multiple causes of religious belief, one cause may be that when people perceive their government as unstable, they turn to God or other religious deities to fulfill a need for order and control in their lives.”

The research would have it that before the next NSW State Election in 2011 with government instability perceived to be high then people should be more likely to believe in a controlling God. That should contrast with events immediately after the election when a sense of government stability has been restored and the citizens consider they don't need to put their faith in an intervening God.

Given the parlous condition of the current NSW Government, due in no small amount to the significantly less-than-ordinary performances by its tribal leaders, the research would have it that there should be huge numbers of new believers flocking to Sunday school and similar religious activities.


Read more about this earth-shattering research here.

Caveat emptor: pay new prices at Target but take home pre-loved goods!

Recently I went into the local Target store and came out the 'proud' owner of a new digital camera.
Or did I?
This short video filmed by an unknown person was found in the camera's memory and, its very existence probably voids any warranty.
Nice one, Target!

Hockey one, hockey two, hockey three.....

Poor Uncle Joe. It felt so right when he practiced his indignation in front of the bathroom mirror, but then it all started to unravel after the Australian Industry Group’s national forum wound down.
First his fearless leader publicly failed to support him – not once but thrice.”
“Back home on the political front today, the spotlight was on the Opposition after Coalition Leader Tony Abbott declined three times to back his Shadow Treasurer's nine-point plan for a more competitive banking system before finally rectifying the matter.”
Then the banks began to bite back at his 9 Point Banking Plan. With “populism” being the kindest term used for his wish list.
Finally Joe fronts the cameras and tells the world that the Federal Treasurer agreed with him in Parliament, but neglected to point out that it was Graham Samuels with whom Swan was agreeing.
Joe obviously forgets that both Hansard and Open Australia have the exchange word for word
And I was actually beginning to feel for the bloke – until that pork pie on national television.

Personal political perspectives debating the Afghanistan War

Statements made by Federal MPs with electorates on the NSW North Coast, during the Afghanistan War debate in the Australian House of Representatives.

Janelle Saffin, Member for Page [Hansard, 26 October 2010]

I also have had a conversation with a constituent who is the mother of a serving soldier in Afghanistan, and she feels quite passionate about it. She talked to me about when we will be able to leave and things like that, but at the same time she wants us there and wants the job well done. There is a conflict around it. Like a lot of members, I have been contacted by a whole range of groups from around the country, particularly social justice groups. The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, ACFID, the Australian Anti-Bases Campaign Coalition, Pax Christi, Jason Thomas, who is a commentator, and all sorts of people and organisations have contacted us.

My local newspapers have been talking about the issue. There was an editorial in the Daily Examiner by David Bancroft, the editor, with the headline 'Keeping the Peace'. I would like to put on record the last two sentences from an article that Chris Masters wrote:

There is no question that our soldiers should leave Afghanistan, and leave sooner rather than later. But only once the job is done.

That is the overwhelming feeling that comes from the community. That is the commitment of the government and the opposition and the message of most of the comments that have been made in this place.

There is currently talk about whether or not we should talk with the Taliban. My information and experience leads me to the view that we always have to talk to those that we seek to make peace with in some way, whether that be through military or other means. But it should always be done strategically, for some sort of strategic advantage. The Taliban regime that ruled Afghanistan was toppled in 2002, but the Taliban are certainly a part of life in Afghanistan. There has been quite a lot of commentary about that recently. I always remember very well what the wonderful President Nelson Mandela said: ‘We don’t make peace with our friends.’ We make it, obviously, with our enemies.

Rob Oakeshott, Member for Lyne [Hansard 21 October 2010]

We have now found ourselves in one hell of a bind. If we leave, like when the 120,000 Russian troops left in 1989, there will be a void. There will be civil unrest and there will be blood. The bad elements of the Taliban would push back and potentially again gain control. The implications for being a 'base for terrorist groups' would potentially re-emerge. On the upside if we leave, however, our 1,550 Australian troops are safe, our tight budget has less strain and our ability to engage on both domestic and regional defence matters arguably increases. Importantly, we must also recognise that article 4 of the ANZUS treaty would be tested if we left.

Compare this with our military staying; there would be more Australian deaths and wounded. The 'base for terrorism' would continue to move to alternative locations such as Pakistan, the Horn of Africa, several Asian hot spots and even into locations such as London. We would continue to work on peace and reconstruction, with gun in hand—'shoot and talk' as General Petraeus recently put it—and we would continue the work of clear, hold and build for at least another 10 years.

Importantly, however, if we are operating in Australia's sovereign interests, we have to leave sometime and we cannot delay the inevitable void that will follow—not now nor in 10 years time. It is this issue—the one called Australia's sovereign interests—that should be central to this debate. We will leave sometime so that we do not spend another $6.1 billion on questionable return. We will leave sometime so we do not continue to lose Australian soldiers for a corrupt regime. We will have to at some point accept a lesser democracy than ours and we will have to at some time recalibrate to focus on our international obligations to our region, to the many challenges that religious extremism and terrorism pose and to what we can and should be doing to develop peace and development in our own region.

Luke Hartsuyker, Member for Cowper

Has not yet risen to his feet in the Afghanistan War debate in the House of Representatives, according to Open Australia records.

Justine Elliott, Member for Richmond

Has not yet risen to her feet in the Afghanistan War debate in the House of Representatives, according to Open Australia records.