The department of experimental theology

OK, so the "fine-tuned universe" is the closest thing to a plausible argument for the existence of God that I know of. I've already looked at what a modern metaphysico-theologo-cosmolonigologist makes of this one (and he's more original, if not more convincing, than you'd expect).

But what does a proper physicist think? It's worth listen to Sean Carroll's excellent talk on the subject. Like Keith Ward, there's no doubt where he's coming from (Ward's book is called Why there is Almost Certainly a God, Carroll's talk is entitled God is not a Good Theory), but for my money Carroll is a lot more lucid and convincing. His talk lasts nearly an hour, but if you've got an hour to spare, this is a fascinating way to spend it:

via

Build it and they will come

Screw it up and they will stay away:

Numerous studies have shown that immigration is neither a panacea to solve economic or demographic problems, nor the cause of economic decline, mass unemployment or public deficits. The alleged positive and negative effects of immigration tend to get wildly exaggerated in public debates. My argument is rather that immigration is a bellwether phenomenon that reflects the more general state of society and the economy. Thriving economies attracted migrants, stagnant economies deter migrants. Rising nations attract migrants, declining nations try to keep them out. Anti-immigration politics reflect a culture of fear and an overall lack of confidence and political courage. Rather than a cause for celebration, declining immigration therefore signals a more general state of crisis.

 Screw it up worse and they will leave:

The recent economic crisis has resulted in Ireland’s unemployment rate going from 4.4% in 2006 to over 14% today. During the same time period, emigration amongst Irish people has increased three-fold.

Immigration isn't the problem. It's the economy, stupid.

And when I say 'stupid', I'm looking to you, Daily Mail and at certain people who ought to know better.

Oooh, no missus...

... don't titter, it's National Innuendo Day here in the UK.

The Americans seem to be having their own, unofficial, version.


via

Political activists, demonstrators and drug dealers

The alleged police attempts to smear Stephen Lawrence's family highlight a dangerously insidious idea.

Did you notice the underlying assumption that any form of political activism or engagement is, by definition, suspicious? According to the undercover cop, his superiors were looking for 'any intelligence that could have smeared the campaign. Along the lines of: the family were political activists, someone in the family was involved in demonstrations, drug dealers, anything.'

To the authoritarian mind, political activism, or being engaged enough to demonstrate about anything are evidence of anti-social behaviour on a par with drug dealing.

It would be bad enough if it was just cops, but how many times have you heard politicians using the phrase "politically motivated" to dismiss anything they happen to disagree with? The irony meter is broken - have these people, who walk, talk, eat and sleep politics, ever seen an election campaign, a Queen's speech, a House of Commons Debate, or a party political broadcast that wasn't "politically motivated?"

Un homme serieux

You're heading a political party in opposition. Government policy seems to be choking off any chance of an economic recovery. So you announce that you, the opposition, need to prove your credibility by sticking to the government's failing Plan A.

I'm looking forward to the next general election, when I get to exercise my democratic right to choose between two parties, both promising to carry on doing more or less the same thing, without any meaningful discussion about whether or not the thing is actually working, or is ever likely to work.

Why confuse voters with clear choices and coherent arguments, when you can just send "signals" by dropping words like "credible" or "tough" into the official party sound bite of the day?

Wouldn't it be great if political parties aimed for incredible once in a while? Or even just a little bit different?

He's at a loss

Apparently, Nick Clegg, David Cameron's political spouse and the titular "head" of the Deputy Conservatives (© Philip Challinor) is 'at a loss' to imagine what marital abuse looks like:

What a difficult question ... I find it so difficult to imagine…so you see a couple … I mean, I don’t know what happened. I’m like you, I don’t know what happened.

When you see a couple having an argument … most people, you know, just assume that the couple will resolve it themselves. If of course something descends into outright violence then that’s something different.

I just don’t know, there was this one photograph, I don’t whether that was just a fleeting thing…or…I’m at a loss to be able to put myself in to that position without knowing exactly… 

 I can only imagine that this astonishing lack of insight stems from some sort of Fifty Shades of Grey scenario, where Nick's master has forbidden him from keeping a mirror in the punishment dungeon.

Asking or telling?

Prime Minister David Cameron will press its overseas tax havens to sign up to an international transparency treaty in London on Saturday, hoping to bolster British credibility ahead of next week's G8 summit. 

 Kudos to the BBC's Evan Davis for asking the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, the obvious question this morning. Does the government really have to ask British Overseas Territories, ever so nicely, to share their information, if they wouldn't mind awfully? Couldn't the government just tell them to do it? They are British Overseas Territories, after all. Danny Alexander replied that he wasn't enough of a constitutional expert to be able to answer that one.

Fair enough, neither am I. But it is a very interesting and relevant question. And there does seem to be a dramatic precedent that gives a tantalising clue.

Consider a British Overseas Territory that wasn't a notorious tax haven. Remember the Chagos Archipelago? You know the place, where the Brits decided to evict the entire native population, with no right of return, back in the 1970s in order to let the United States to build a military base? The archipelago that the British government turned into a marine reserve the size of France in 2010, ostensibly because we're a nation of deep green nature lovers, but probably just in order to make sure the displaced people, who lived by fishing and farming coconuts, wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of ever going home?

It's probably a bit more complicated than that, but this suggests to me that when puts its mind to it, the British Government can do pretty much what it damn well likes with its overseas territories.

Worth looking into - after all, as someone recently pointed out, how many divisions has the Cayman Islands got?