Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 349

On Fri­days I share articles/resources about broad cul­tur­al, soci­etal and the­o­log­i­cal issues. Be sure to see the expla­na­tion and dis­claimers at the bot­tom. I wel­come your sug­ges­tions. If you read some­thing fas­ci­nat­ing please pass it my way.

I wish this issue was less rushed (and there­fore bet­ter edit­ed and more com­pact), but I’ve been deal­ing with a fam­i­ly emer­gency and have had less time to read and write than nor­mal.

This is vol­ume 349, a prime num­ber.

Things Glen Found Interesting

1. The big news this week is the leak of the Supreme Court draft opin­ion por­tend­ing a rever­sal of Roe v Wade.
   • It’s not often that I inter­ject my own views into one of these week­ly roundups, but giv­en the con­tentious­ness of this issue I think it is only fair you know where I am com­ing from. I am pro-life. In sol­i­dar­i­ty with the Christ­mas sto­ry (where­in God became incar­nate in the womb) and with Chris­tians through­out the ages, I believe abor­tion is a bad thing and the rare cas­es where it is med­ical­ly nec­es­sary to save the life of the moth­er are trag­ic. I am grate­ful that the Supreme Court appears to be on the verge of right­ing a great injus­tice for which they are respon­si­ble in the first place. Fur­ther­more, I do not view this as a par­ti­san issue even though it is com­mon­ly per­ceived that way: there are pro-life Democ­rats as well as pro-life Repub­li­cans. In fact, there would be many more pro-life Democ­rats in office were it not for a con­cert­ed effort to mar­gin­al­ize them with­in the par­ty.
   • If you have not read this clas­sic arti­cle in the Atlantic I sug­gest you read it before any­thing else: The Dis­hon­esty of the Abor­tion Debate (Caitlin Flana­gan, The Atlantic): “The truth is that the best argu­ment on each side is a damn good one, and until you acknowl­edge that fact, you aren’t speak­ing or even think­ing hon­est­ly about the issue. You cer­tain­ly aren’t going to con­vince any­body. Only the truth has the pow­er to move.”
   • If Roe Is Dead (Col­in Hansen, Gospel Coali­tion): “If Roe is dead, more chil­dren will live.… this is the day so many of us have labored and prayed to see. We can rejoice that God has heard our pleas that he would rec­ti­fy this injus­tice. And we can move for­ward in every way pos­si­ble to pro­tect as many chil­dren as we can: by ban­ning abor­tion where pos­si­ble, by bol­ster­ing cri­sis preg­nan­cy cen­ters, by build­ing stronger fos­ter care sys­tems, and much more.”
   • Receiv­ing Jus­tice with Grat­i­tude (Samuel D. James, Sub­stack): “It has com­mon­ly been sug­gest­ed that oppos­ing Roe v Wade is moral­ly ille­git­i­mate unless it is accom­pa­nied with a kind of max­i­mal­ist sup­port for a social safe­ty net. In oth­er words, it has been sug­gest­ed that you’re not real­ly pro-life if you oppose abor­tion but sup­port cap­i­tal­ism; you’re not real­ly pro-life if you hate Roe v. Wade but don’t vote for can­di­dates who vow to redis­trib­ute wealth; you’re not real­ly pro-life if all you want is to stop abor­tion rather than pro­vid­ing exten­sive care and sup­port for baby and moth­er.… Receive jus­tice with grat­i­tude.” This gets to close to some­thing I’ve been try­ing to artic­u­late to myself, but it’s not quite what I want to say. But it’s close.
   • State­ment on the leaked Ali­to draft opin­ion in Dobbs (Robert George, Mir­ror of Jus­tice): “If, as the leaked draft opin­ion seems to sug­gest, the Supreme Court has decid­ed to reverse Roe and return the ques­tion of abor­tion entire­ly to the leg­isla­tive domain, then the pro-life move­ment faces a new set of challenges—challenges even more daunt­ing than over­turn­ing Roe. In the face of pro­found oppo­si­tion from the wealth­i­est, most pow­er­ful, and most influ­en­tial forces and insti­tu­tions in the coun­try, the move­ment needs to extend the pro­tec­tions of law on terms of fair­ness and equal­i­ty to moth­ers and chil­dren alike. Going still fur­ther, it needs to work in both the pub­lic and pri­vate spheres to pro­vide nec­es­sary sup­port for moth­ers and chil­dren, nev­er allow­ing their inter­ests or well-being to be pit­ted against each oth­er. To its great cred­it, the pro-life move­ment has been doing this since before Roe v. Wade—again, in the face of hos­til­i­ty from the most pow­er­ful forces. We will need now to do more and bet­ter. We can and we will.” Robert George is a law pro­fes­sor at Prince­ton.
   • If Roe v. Wade Is Over­turned, What’s Next? (Jean­nie Suk Gersen, New York­er): “It may also be only a mat­ter of time, if Mis­sis­sip­pi pre­vails, before pro-life legal efforts turn toward get­ting the Supreme Court to rec­og­nize the con­sti­tu­tion­al rights of the fetus. These efforts would focus on the same part of the Con­sti­tu­tion that was pre­vi­ous­ly held to pro­vide the right to abor­tion, the Four­teenth Amend­ment, which pro­hibits states from depriv­ing ‘any per­son of life, lib­er­ty, or prop­er­ty with­out due process of law.’” The author is a Har­vard Law prof.
   • About post-Roe pol­i­tics and Biden’s evolv­ing doc­trines on choos­ing to ‘abort a child’ (Ter­ry Mat­ting­ly, GetRe­li­gion): “Once upon a time, Sen. Joe Biden was almost a pro-life Catholic Demo­c­rat. This may be the rea­son — as jour­nal­ists fre­quent­ly note — that he seems uncom­fort­able say­ing ‘abor­tion’ in pub­lic remarks.”
   • An arti­cle by some­one out­raged: Of Course the Con­sti­tu­tion Has Noth­ing to Say About Abor­tion (Jill Lep­ore, The New York­er): “This will be, in large part, because Supreme Court Jus­tice Samuel Ali­to is sur­prised that there is so lit­tle writ­ten about abor­tion in a four-thou­sand-word doc­u­ment craft­ed by fifty-five men in 1787. As it hap­pens, there is also noth­ing at all in that doc­u­ment, which sets out fun­da­men­tal law, about preg­nan­cy, uterus­es, vagi­nas, fetus­es, pla­cen­tas, men­stru­al blood, breasts, or breast milk. There is noth­ing in that doc­u­ment about women at all.”
     • Over­all a good arti­cle (although I think it demon­strates the oppo­site of what it intends to demon­strate). Also, although the rhetoric in the excerpt is pow­er­ful, it’s unfair — there’s also noth­ing in the Con­sti­tu­tion about testes, sperm or penis­es. I find this is often the case in the abor­tion debate: pow­er­ful rhetoric that cov­ers over weak­ness­es in the the sub­stance of the argu­ment.
   • Anoth­er not-thrilled per­spec­tive: God Damn Amer­i­ca (Jack Mirkin­son, Sub­stack): “The final opin­ion could dif­fer, but what we have in front of us is an extrem­ist, ille­git­i­mate opin­ion from an extrem­ist, ille­git­i­mate court, one that sees women as serfs and breed­ers, that sees queer peo­ple as sub­hu­man, that sees minori­ties of every kind as dirt under its col­lec­tive shoe. It is hap­pi­ly drag­ging us into the dark ages. Ali­to and every­one who joins him are evil peo­ple. No hell is too hot for them.”
   • A pret­ty extreme out­raged per­spec­tive: As the US supreme court moves to end abor­tion, is Amer­i­ca still a free coun­try? (Moira Done­gan, The Guardian): “Some have raised doubts about whether Amer­i­ca can call itself a democ­ra­cy, now that pol­i­cy­mak­ing pow­er has been large­ly tak­en over by the unelect­ed courts – whose deci­sions, like this one, are so rad­i­cal­ly out of step with, and indif­fer­ent to, pub­lic opin­ion. But it is also worth won­der­ing whether any coun­try can call itself a democ­ra­cy that does not pro­tect abor­tion rights.”
     • It is odd to claim now as the point when courts have tak­en over elec­toral pow­er when it was the Supreme Court itself that imposed abor­tion upon every state out­side of their demo­c­ra­t­ic process­es. If this draft is ille­git­i­mate because it’s not a byprod­uct of an elec­toral process, then that’s one more rea­son that Roe v Wade was itself ille­git­i­mate.
   • You can see oth­er abor­tion-relat­ed con­tent from pre­vi­ous week­ly roundups at https://glenandpaula.com/wordpress/archives/tag/abortion
2. Not relat­ed but relat­ed: Is Sup­port for Sin­gle Moth­er­hood and Cohab­i­ta­tion Falling in the U.S.? (Alysse ElHage, Insti­tute for Fam­i­ly Stud­ies): “…as more Amer­i­cans have expe­ri­enced cohab­i­ta­tion, either per­son­al­ly or through watch­ing friends or fam­i­ly cohab­it, more peo­ple are real­iz­ing that liv­ing togeth­er just does not com­pare to mar­riage in terms of rela­tion­ship qual­i­ty or sta­bil­i­ty. That could explain why Pew found a dif­fer­ence based on age. A Pew spokes­woman told me via email, ‘adults ages 30 to 49, 50 to 64, and ages 65+ were more like­ly than in 2018 to say [cohab­i­ta­tion] is a bad thing for soci­ety.’ How­ev­er, there was no sim­i­lar shift among 18 to 29-year-olds.”
3. About the leak itself:
   • Why the Dobbs Leak Is Dan­ger­ous (Mark Movs­esian, First Things): “In dis­clos­ing the draft opin­ion now, rather than in Feb­ru­ary when it cir­cu­lat­ed, the leak­er pre­sum­ably means to do one of two things. First, the leak­er might hope that pub­lic pres­sure will intim­i­date one or more of the jus­tices and affect the out­come of the case. Pos­si­bly, the leak­er is a con­ser­v­a­tive clerk try­ing to keep Alito’s major­i­ty intact, on the the­o­ry that it would be too embar­rass­ing for a jus­tice to change his or her mind in these cir­cum­stances. More like­ly, though, the leak­er is a pro­gres­sive who hopes an angry pub­lic reac­tion will make a mem­ber of Alito’s major­i­ty recon­sid­er.  Alter­na­tive­ly, the leak­er might know that Jus­tice Ali­to’s major­i­ty is sol­id and that try­ing to change any­one’s mind is use­less. In that case, the leaker’s goal like­ly would be, quite sim­ply, to wreck the Court as an institution—because that is what a leak like this accom­plish­es.” The author is a for­mer Supreme Court clerk and cur­rent­ly a law pro­fes­sor at St. John’s Uni­ver­si­ty.
   • How rare is a Supreme Court breach? Very rare (Josh Ger­stein, Politi­co): “[Law prof and Supreme Court biog­ra­ph­er] Wer­miel said the jus­tices typ­i­cal­ly argue that con­fi­den­tial­i­ty is crit­i­cal to the high court’s oper­a­tion and col­le­gial­i­ty. ‘They think it will chill their delib­er­a­tion with one anoth­er and their can­dor and will­ing­ness to be open in exchange of views,’ Wer­miel said. Some also con­tend that such reports dis­tract from the court’s most endur­ing work: its opin­ions.”
   • Who­dun­nit? (Josh Black­man, The Volokh Con­spir­a­cy): “And a Jus­tice must know that autho­riz­ing this leak would prob­a­bly lead to impeach­ment pro­ceed­ings. I do not think this leak came from a chambers.There is [anoth­er] option: the leak did not come from a cham­bers.… Rather, the leak may have come from some­one with access to the Supreme Court’s draft opin­ions. And his­to­ry sug­gest that this sort of leak is pos­si­ble.” The author is a law prof at South Texas Col­lege of Law.
   • What If The SCOTUS Leak Came From A For­eign Hack? (Josh Black­man, The Volokh Con­spir­a­cy): “But there is anoth­er enti­ty that may want to burn down the Supreme Court, and tear apart the Amer­i­can peo­ple: a for­eign gov­ern­ment. If that was the intent, the plan was suc­cess­ful. Look no fur­ther than the groups pub­lish­ing the address­es of Supreme Court jus­tices. Plus, as a ben­e­fit to for­eign states, the tor­rent of news has tak­en Ukraine out of the head­lines. Through this lens, the hack becomes much more plau­si­ble.”
4. 103 Bits of Advice I Wish I Had Known (Kevin Kel­ly, per­son­al blog): this is some­thing he does every year. My two favorites were: “There is no such thing as being ‘on time.’ You are either late or you are ear­ly. Your choice.” and “Aim to die broke. Give to your ben­e­fi­cia­ries before you die; it’s more fun and use­ful. Spend it all. Your last check should go to the funer­al home and it should bounce.
5. What if You Didn’t Have to File a Tax Return? (Jere­my Hor­pedahl, blog): “In ‘Auto­mat­ic Tax Fil­ing: Sim­u­lat­ing a Pre-Pop­u­lat­ed Form 1040,’ the authors use a large sam­ple of tax returns to esti­mate how many tax­pay­ers a pre-filled return would work for. The results are almost split down the mid­dle: it would work well for maybe half of US tax­pay­ers (41–48% of tax­pay­ers, depend­ing on how we are defin­ing suc­cess­ful). For the oth­er half, it wouldn’t give you an accu­rate esti­mate of how much tax you owed. And the errors can be large.“The author is an econ prof at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Cen­tral Arkansas (home of a great Chi Alpha, inci­den­tal­ly). I had assumed this was sim­ply a byprod­uct of lob­by­ing, not that there were actu­al tech­ni­cal rea­sons not to do it.
6. The UFO brief­in­gs on Capi­tol Hill have begun. Law­mak­ers aren’t impressed. (Bryan Ben­der, Politi­co): “Law­mak­ers receiv­ing the lat­est secret brief­in­gs on UFOs say nation­al secu­ri­ty agen­cies still aren’t tak­ing seri­ous­ly the reports of high­ly advanced air­craft of unknown ori­gin vio­lat­ing pro­tect­ed air­space.”
7. Amer­i­ca flex­es its mar­itime mus­cles! U.S. Air Force suc­cess­ful­ly tests 2,000-pound air-launched ‘quicksink’ bomb and blasts car­go ship out of the sea in one strike (Tom Brown, Dai­ly Mail): “Quicksink risks rel­a­tive­ly low-cost air­craft when com­pared with the dan­ger of los­ing a sub­ma­rine to ene­my retal­i­a­tion after a tor­pe­do strike.… A sin­gle F‑15EX costs $87.7 mil­lion per air­craft, where­as a US sub­ma­rine can cost up to $2.8 bil­lion per unit, accord­ing to Aero Cor­ner.” The accom­pa­ny­ing video is impres­sive.

Less Serious Things Which Also Interested/Amused Glen

• Bob Mor­timer’s Theft and Shrub­bery (Would I Like To You?, YouTube): five and a half min­utes. Rec­om­mend­ed by a uni­ver­si­ty admin­is­tra­tor (!)
• New Poll Shows Sur­pris­ing­ly Siz­able Major­i­ty Of Unborn Babies Favor Over­turn­ing Roe (Baby­lon Bee)
• Man Called By Holy Spir­it To Do The Exact Thing He Want­ed To Do (Baby­lon Bee)
• Sixth Love Lan­guage Revealed To Be Tacos (Baby­lon Bee)
• New research sheds light on the per­ceived effec­tive­ness of flir­ta­tion tac­tics (Emi­ly Man­is, Psy Post): “Ever won­der what the most effec­tive flirt­ing tech­nique would be for you? A study pub­lished in Evo­lu­tion­ary Psy­chol­o­gy sug­gests that they may dif­fer between men and women but laugh­ing at some­one else’s jokes is an effec­tive tech­nique for both gen­ders.” Pass­ing along as a pub­lic ser­vice to sin­gle col­lege stu­dents.

Things Glen Found Interesting A While Ago

Every week I’ll high­light an old­er link still worth your con­sid­er­a­tion. This week we have How Pornog­ra­phy Makes Us Less Human and Less Humane (Matthew Lee Ander­son, The Gospel Coali­tion): “Beneath pornog­ra­phy is the sup­po­si­tion that the mere fact of our desire for a woman makes us wor­thy of her. And so, not being bound by any kind of norm, desire must pro­ceed end­less­ly. It is no sur­prise that the indus­tri­al­ized, cheap-and-easy sex of pornog­ra­phy has answered and evoked an almost unre­strained sex­u­al greed, which allows us to be gods and god­dess­es with­in the safe­ty of our own fan­tasies. It is for deep and impor­tant rea­sons that the Ten Com­mand­ments use the eco­nom­ic lan­guage of ‘cov­et­ing’ to describe the bad­ness of errant sex­u­al desires.” First shared in vol­ume 216.

Why Do You Send This Email?

In the time of King David, the tribe of Issachar pro­duced shrewd war­riors “who under­stood the times and knew what Israel should do” (1 Chron 12:32). In a sim­i­lar way, we need to become wise peo­ple whose faith inter­acts with the world. I pray this email gives you greater insight, so that you may con­tin­ue the tra­di­tion of Issachar.

Disclaimer

Chi Alpha is not a par­ti­san orga­ni­za­tion. To para­phrase anoth­er min­is­ter: we are not about the donkey’s agen­da and we are not about the elephant’s agen­da — we are about the Lamb’s agen­da. Hav­ing said that, I read wide­ly (in part because I believe we should aspire to pass the ide­o­log­i­cal Tur­ing test and in part because I do not believe I can fair­ly say “I agree” or “I dis­agree” until I can say “I under­stand”) and may at times share arti­cles that have a strong par­ti­san bias sim­ply because I find the arti­cle stim­u­lat­ing. The upshot: you should not assume I agree with every­thing an author says in an arti­cle I men­tion, much less things the author has said in oth­er arti­cles (although if I strong­ly dis­agree with some­thing in the arti­cle I’ll usu­al­ly men­tion it). And to the extent you can dis­cern my opin­ions, please under­stand that they are my own and not nec­es­sar­i­ly those of Chi Alpha or any oth­er orga­ni­za­tion I may be per­ceived to rep­re­sent. Also, remem­ber that I’m not report­ing news — I’m giv­ing you a selec­tion of things I found inter­est­ing. There’s a lot hap­pen­ing in the world that’s not mak­ing an appear­ance here because I haven’t found stim­u­lat­ing arti­cles writ­ten about it. If this was for­ward­ed to you and you want to receive future emails, sign up here. You can also view the archives.