Tag: academia

Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 380

I found a remark­ably strong list of arti­cles to choose from this week — what float­ed to the top is worth pon­der­ing

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.

This is vol­ume 380, which one web­site claims is the num­ber of 13-bead neck­lace pat­terns you can cre­ate if you have only two col­ors of beads. That seems real­ly low to me so I must not under­stand the way they define pat­terns and I don’t want to do the math, so that’s my num­ber fac­toid for the week.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. What Euthana­sia Has Done to Cana­da (Ross Douthat, New York Times): “The idea that human rights encom­pass a right to self-destruc­tion, the con­ceit that peo­ple in a state of ter­ri­ble suf­fer­ing and vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty are real­ly ‘free’ to make a choice that ends all choic­es, the idea that a heal­ing pro­fes­sion should include death in its bat­tery of treat­ments — these are inher­ent­ly destruc­tive ideas. Left unchecked, they will forge a cru­el brave new world, a dehu­man­iz­ing final chap­ter for the lib­er­al sto­ry.”
    • Woman fea­tured in pro-euthana­sia com­mer­cial want­ed to live, say friends (Tristin Hop­per, Nation­al Post): “In sev­er­al more egre­gious cas­es, Cana­di­ans have even been offered MAID in lieu of prop­er med­ical treat­ment. Last month, a House of Com­mons com­mit­tee heard about five sep­a­rate inci­dents of Cana­di­an Armed Forces vet­er­ans being offered MAID after seek­ing assis­tance with issues rang­ing from depres­sion to PTSD. Most recent­ly, for­mer par­a­lympian Chris­tine Gau­thi­er went pub­lic with her sto­ry of being offered MAID by a Vet­er­ans Affairs case­work­er after she com­plained about delays in installing an in-home chair­lift.”
  2. What Too Lit­tle For­give­ness Does to Us (Tim Keller, New York Times): “…there must be the recog­ni­tion that for­give­ness does not con­tra­dict the pur­suit of jus­tice. Rather, it is its pre­con­di­tion. For­giv­ing is not excus­ing. To for­give some­thing, you must name it as the evil it is.… [But] if you don’t for­give inter­nal­ly, you won’t con­front the wrong­do­ers for justice’s sake or for future vic­tims’ sake or for God’s sake. You will be doing it for your sake, and the project will go awry. ”
  3. Anato­my of a Can­cel­la­tion (Scott Yenor, First Things): “The Title IX charges marked an esca­la­tion and, strange­ly, a path to qua­si-vic­to­ry.… I had been prepar­ing for it for years, know­ing that some­one who treads on con­tro­ver­sial top­ics such as the fam­i­ly and fem­i­nism would even­tu­al­ly face the ire of the university’s civ­il rights regime. All my lec­tures for the past five years are record­ed and stored. All stu­dent com­mu­ni­ca­tions and grades are saved. I had kept detailed records on whom I called on dur­ing each class.”
    • Remark­able. Will prob­a­bly enter my ros­ter of clas­sics I repost at the bot­tom of these emails.
  4. Remem­ber­ing What Repen­tance Looks Like (David French, The Dis­patch): “Any per­son can live a life of great mean­ing and hon­or far removed from the spot­light. And not one of us is capa­ble of peer­ing into a man’s heart to know when he’s changed. But let me sug­gest a clear warn­ing sign that repen­tance isn’t real—when a pow­er­ful per­son doesn’t just ask for for­give­ness but also seeks restora­tion to the life they lived before. No one is enti­tled to be a pas­tor or a politi­cian, and there are times when the con­tin­ued quest for those posi­tions is itself a sign that a per­son sim­ply doesn’t under­stand the price they should pay when they’ve com­mit­ted a seri­ous wrong.”
  5. When Gay Rights Clash With Reli­gious Free­dom (Tish Har­ri­son War­ren, New York Times): “Ms. Smith serves gay cus­tomers. She would not refuse to build a web­site for some­one sim­ply because the per­son is gay. She specif­i­cal­ly does not want her ser­vices to be used as part of a cel­e­bra­tion of a same-sex wed­ding. We make sim­i­lar allowances for oth­er ide­o­log­i­cal dif­fer­ences. A pro-choice artist should not be com­pelled to make a logo for a pro-life ral­ly. A pro­gres­sive par­ty plan­ner should not be required to take on a Trump PAC as a client. A gay web design­er ought not be forced to cre­ate a site pro­mot­ing a con­ser­v­a­tive church.”
    • Relat­ed: The Respect for Mar­riage Act Is Also a Vic­to­ry for Same-Sex-Mar­riage Oppo­nents (Jean­nie Suk Gersen, New York­er): “When this bill is signed into law, there will be a fed­er­al statute that makes a res­o­lu­tion of con­flict between reli­gious free­dom and gay-rights claims explic­it in a way that it arguably was not before, clear­ly favor­ing a reli­gious group over a gay couple—even though the con­flict involves open ques­tions on the rela­tion­ship between the First Amend­ment and antidis­crim­i­na­tion laws.”
    • Gersen is a pro­fes­sor at Har­vard Law.
  6. More about Chat­G­PT and AI gen­er­al­ly
    • Does Chat­G­PT Mean Robots Are Com­ing For the Skilled Jobs? (Paul Krug­man, New York Times): “OK, I didn’t write the para­graph you just read; Chat­G­PT did, in response to the ques­tion ‘How will A.I. affect the demand for knowl­edge work­ers?’ The give­away, to me at least, is that I still refuse to use ‘impact’ as a verb. And it didn’t explic­it­ly lay out exact­ly why we should, over­all, expect no impact on aggre­gate employ­ment. But it was arguably bet­ter than what many humans, includ­ing some peo­ple who imag­ine them­selves smart, would have writ­ten.” Nobel lau­re­ate Paul Krug­man opin­ing on the poten­tial impact of tech­nol­o­gy like Chat­G­PT.
    • The Mechan­i­cal Pro­fes­sor (Ethan Mol­lick, Sub­stack): “But, rather than be scared of AI, we should think about how these sys­tems pro­vide us an oppor­tu­ni­ty to help extend our own capa­bil­i­ties. Think of it like hav­ing an intern, but one who just hap­pens to work instan­teous­ly, can write both code and sol­id descrip­tive writ­ing, and has a large chunk of the world’s knowl­edge in their brain.” The author is a pro­fes­sor of man­age­ment at the Whar­ton School.
    • Before the flood (Samuel Ham­mond, Sub­stack): “In par­tic­u­lar, I sus­pect near-term AI will break a lot of things, start­ing with our lega­cy insti­tu­tions. The firmware of the US gov­ern­ment is 70+ years old. We val­i­date people’s iden­ti­ty with a nine dig­it num­ber­ing sys­tem cre­at­ed in 1936. The Admin­is­tra­tive Pro­ce­dure Act, which gov­erns all reg­u­la­to­ry process, came only ten years lat­er. The IRS Mas­ter File runs on assem­bly from the 1960s. Our labor laws are from the assem­bly line era. Unem­ploy­ment Insur­ance — the safe­ty-net for help­ing peo­ple adjust to employ­ment shocks from AI or oth­er­wise — is so bro­ken that Con­gress found it eas­i­er to give every­one an extra $600 a week and live with $150 bil­lion worth of fraud than to recruit the retired Cobol engi­neers nec­es­sary to sim­ply update the code. There is a great deal of ruin in this nation.” The author is the direc­to­ry of social pol­i­cy for the Niska­nen Cen­ter.
    • How come GPT can seem so bril­liant one minute and so breath­tak­ing­ly dumb the next? (Gary Mar­cus, Sub­stack): “GPT doesn’t talk ran­dom­ly, because it’s pas­tich­ing things actu­al peo­ple said. (Or, more often, syn­onyms and para­phras­es of those things.) When GPT gets things right, it is often com­bin­ing bits that don’t belong togeth­er, but not quite in ran­dom ways, but rather in ways where there is some over­lap in some aspect or anoth­er.” Empha­sis in orig­i­nal.
    • What are the pol­i­tics of Chat­G­PT? (Tyler Cowen, Mar­gin­al Rev­o­lu­tion): “Most of all, I see Chat­G­PT as ‘pro-West­ern’ in its per­spec­tive, while grant­i­ng there are dif­fer­ent visions of what this means. I also see Chat­G­PT as ‘con­tro­ver­sy min­i­miz­ing,’ for both com­mer­cial rea­sons but also for sim­ply wish­ing to get on with the sub­stan­tive work with a min­i­mum of exter­nal fuss. I would not myself have built it so dif­fer­ent­ly, and note that the bias may lie in the train­ing data rather than any bias­es of the cre­ators.”
  7. Air­plane Mode to Become Obso­lete in the EU (Nik­ki Main, Giz­mo­do): “It’s been said that the rea­son for ban­ning cell phone use on air­planes is because it could inter­fere with the pilot’s nav­i­ga­tion sys­tems. How­ev­er, Busi­ness Insid­er report­ed in 2017 that the FCC instat­ed the air­plane cell phone ban to ‘pro­tect against radio inter­fer­ence to cell phone net­works on the ground.’ If all air­lines allowed cell phone access at 40,000 feet in the air, mul­ti­ple cell tow­ers on the ground could pick up on ser­vice from active cell phones which could crowd the ground net­works, dis­rupt­ing ser­vice, accord­ing to the out­let.”
    • This one intrigues me because it calls into ques­tion a sit­u­a­tion so many of us take for grant­ed. I, for one, would not like there to be phone calls on air­planes (hard to read or watch a movie with that going on next to you). But stay­ing touch via text would be nice.

Less Serious Things Which Also Interested/Amused Glen

Things Glen Found Interesting A While Ago

Every week I’ll high­light an old­er link still worth your con­sid­er­a­tion. This week we have What Unites Most Grad­u­ates of Selec­tive Col­leges? An Intact Fam­i­ly (Nicholas Zill & Brad Wilcox, Insti­tute for Fam­i­ly Stud­ies): “… even after con­trol­ling for par­ent edu­ca­tion, fam­i­ly income, and stu­dent race and eth­nic­i­ty, being raised by one’s mar­ried birth par­ents pro­vides an addi­tion­al boost to one’s chances of get­ting through Prince­ton.” From vol­ume 254.

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.

Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 379

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.

This is vol­ume 379, the 75th prime num­ber.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. The Holy Spir­it is a Polit­i­cal Lia­bil­i­ty (Samuel D. James, Sub­stack): “It does not mean we have to accept that we sim­ply can­not win. It means the oppo­site: accept­ing that we have already won. When Christ emerged from that tomb, all the gen­der insan­i­ty, all the reli­gious per­se­cu­tion, all the aban­don­ment of first prin­ci­ples in the uni­verse were giv­en a death sen­tence. Christ him­self is truth. Truth was killed, then got back up, and will nev­er die again. This is not just piety. It’s a real­i­ty that must go down deep in our meth­ods, our speech, our atti­tudes.”
  2. Tolkien Was Right: Notes on the Respect for Mar­riage Act and the Post-Boomer Church (Jake Meador, Mere Ortho­doxy): “Some time after his death, an edi­tor was going through the papers and books in J. R. R. Tolkien’s library when he came across an old copy of C. S. Lewis’s pam­phlet ‘Chris­t­ian Behav­ior,’ which would lat­er be re-pub­lished as one sec­tion in Lewis’s clas­sic Mere Chris­tian­i­ty. Fold­ed inside the book was a let­ter Tolkien had writ­ten but appar­ent­ly nev­er sent to his long-time friend and fel­low Oxford don. In it, Tolkien took issue with Lewis’s treat­ment of divorce in the pam­phlet.” Rec­om­mend­ed by an alum­nus.
  3. FORUM: The New Shape of Chris­t­ian Pub­lic Dis­course (Jay Green, Cur­rent): “ ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ do not have self-explana­to­ry or sta­ble mean­ings. The old labels tend to obscure at least as much as they reveal. The ter­mi­nol­o­gy is handy in a fight as long we aren’t asked to define exact­ly what we mean by them. But espe­cial­ly dur­ing the past sev­en years some of the most acri­mo­nious dis­agree­ments among Chris­tians about pub­lic life go well beyond the issues iden­ti­fied by Hunter in the 1990s. Our pub­lic fights have become far more than basic dis­agree­ments over ‘issues.’ ”
    • Rec­om­mend­ed by an alum­nus. The author is a his­to­ry pro­fes­sor at Covenant Col­lege. I think he is on to some­thing, but his fram­ing is not quite right.
  4. Check out Chat­G­PT — it’s free to play with and extreme­ly impres­sive. You can sign up at https://beta.openai.com/playground
    • I had it write a wor­ship song: https://beta.openai.com/playground/p/iWbGQyANHXhdXGw2fM0AGQQJ
    • Andy Crouch, a shrewd Chris­t­ian thinker, believes this rep­re­sents the end of a lot of home­work. https://twitter.com/ahc/status/1598323606303424512 — this sim­ple tool can do col­lege-lev­el home­work pret­ty eas­i­ly.
    • Jail­break­ing Chat­G­PT on Release Day (Zvi Mow­showitz, Sub­stack): “One of the things it attempts to do to be ‘safe.’ It does this by refus­ing to answer ques­tions that call upon it to do or help you do some­thing ille­gal or oth­er­wise out­side its bounds. Makes sense. As is the default with such things, those safe­guards were bro­ken through almost imme­di­ate­ly. By the end of the day, sev­er­al prompt engi­neer­ing meth­ods had been found.”
    • In anoth­er bit of AI news, On the Diplo­ma­cy AI (Zvi Mowsh­witz, Sub­stack): “When peo­ple say the AI ‘solved’ Diplo­ma­cy, it real­ly real­ly didn’t. What it did, which is still impres­sive, is get a han­dle on the basics of Diplo­ma­cy, in this par­tic­u­lar con­text where bots can­not be iden­ti­fied and are in the minor­i­ty, and in par­tic­u­lar where mes­sage detail is suf­fi­cient­ly lim­it­ed that it can use an LLM to be able to com­mu­ni­cate with humans rea­son­ably and not be iden­ti­fied.”
  5. Some Stan­ford news:
    • Stan­ford president’s research under inves­ti­ga­tion (Theo Bak­er, Stan­ford Dai­ly): There’s a lot hap­pen­ing in this arti­cle and what fol­lows is not the main point, but this para­graph caught my atten­tion: “Pri­or to tak­ing on Stanford’s pres­i­den­cy in ear­ly 2016, Tessier-Lav­i­gne direct­ed more than a thou­sand sci­en­tists at biotech­nol­o­gy com­pa­nies Genen­tech as well as Regen­eron. Tessier-Lavigne’s salary at Regen­eron in 2014 was $1,764,032, accord­ing to a pre­vi­ous­ly-unre­port­ed class action law­suit alleg­ing exces­sive com­pen­sa­tion for mem­bers of the Com­pen­sa­tion Com­mit­tee, which includ­ed Tessier-Lav­i­gne. It was lat­er set­tled. He earned $1,555,296 from Stan­ford in 2021 with an addi­tion­al $700,000 annu­al­ly as a board direc­tor for Regen­eron.”
    • ‘This actu­al­ly changes every­thing’: Altered image in 1999 paper rais­es poten­tial per­il for Stan­ford pres­i­dent (Olivia Gold­hill  & Megan Molteni, Stat News): “The new­ly iden­ti­fied appar­ent manip­u­la­tion in Cell is espe­cial­ly seri­ous as it seems to alter the results and appears to be inten­tion­al, said Bik. ‘I would tes­ti­fy in court that’s been dig­i­tal­ly altered,” she told STAT. “This actu­al­ly changes every­thing. … It’s a more severe lev­el of dig­i­tal alter­ing.’”
    • Most damn­ing — lat­er in the arti­cle they explain that sim­i­lar prob­lems have occurred at mul­ti­ple insti­tu­tions with vary­ing sets of coau­thors with MTL being the only con­stant pres­ence. Eep!
    • Depart­ment of Edu­ca­tion opens inves­ti­ga­tion into Stan­ford for bias against male stu­dents (Judy Liu, Stan­ford Dai­ly): “The com­plaint, which was filed by Uni­ver­si­ty of South­ern Cal­i­for­nia emer­i­tus pro­fes­sor James Moore and Kur­sat Pekgoz, CEO of Turk­ish real estate com­pa­ny Doruk, alleges that mul­ti­ple Stan­ford pro­grams vio­late Title IX, a fed­er­al civ­il rights law that pro­tects peo­ple from sex-based dis­crim­i­na­tion in edu­ca­tion pro­grams that receive fed­er­al funds.” An inevitable devel­op­ment in our iden­ti­ty-obsessed cul­ture.
  6. ‘It’s The First Time I’ve Seen This in Chi­na’ (Simon Lep­lâtre, Bari Weis­s’s Sub­stack): “When some­one shout­ed, ‘Xi Jin­ping, resign,’ the crowd explod­ed, and soon oth­er peo­ple were say­ing it, and it was as if the shouter had bro­ken a taboo in a coun­try where peo­ple usu­al­ly low­ered their voice when men­tion­ing the name of their leader.  Then some­one else in the crowd shout­ed, ‘Down with the Com­mu­nist Par­ty,’ which was a big no-no—the Chi­nese gen­er­al­ly broad­cast their ide­o­log­i­cal fervor—and the crowd loved that, too. It was like top­pling the stat­ue of a dic­ta­tor. I told a col­league we were prob­a­bly wit­ness­ing some­thing impor­tant that might become very impor­tant.”
  7. Fire Them All; God Will Know His Own (Brooks B. Ander­son, Har­vard Crim­son): “Across the Uni­ver­si­ty, for every aca­d­e­m­ic employ­ee there are approx­i­mate­ly 1.45 admin­is­tra­tors. When only con­sid­er­ing fac­ul­ty, this ratio jumps to 3.09. Har­vard employs 7,024 total full-time admin­is­tra­tors, only slight­ly few­er than the under­grad­u­ate pop­u­la­tion. What do they all do?” The sit­u­a­tion is sim­i­lar at Stan­ford.

Less Serious Things Which Also Interested/Amused Glen

Things Glen Found Interesting A While Ago

Every week I’ll high­light an old­er link still worth your con­sid­er­a­tion. This week we have Reli­gious ser­vices may low­er risk of ‘deaths of despair’ (Chris Sweeney, Har­vard Gazette): “After adjust­ing for numer­ous vari­ables, the study showed that women who attend­ed ser­vices at least once per week had a 68 per­cent low­er risk of death from despair com­pared to those nev­er attend­ing ser­vices. Men who attend­ed ser­vices at least once per week had a 33 per­cent low­er risk of death from despair.” Those are HUGE reduc­tions! From vol­ume 251.

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.

Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 378

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.

This is vol­ume 378, which is appar­ent­ly the max­i­mum num­ber of objects you can slice a cube into using 13 cuts.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. Jesus Christ, Stream­ing Star (Ruth Gra­ham, New York Times): “Con­ceived by a lit­tle-known cre­ator, fea­tur­ing no major stars and fund­ed pri­mar­i­ly, at first, through small con­tri­bu­tions with­out the sup­port of a Hol­ly­wood stu­dio, [The Cho­sen] began on an obscure pro­pri­etary app and is now giv­en away for free. Its I.P. is 2,000 years old. But despite the long odds, the faith-based dra­ma series has become a bona fide phe­nom­e­non in many parts of Chris­t­ian cul­ture, attract­ing a fer­vent ecu­meni­cal fan­dom while remain­ing almost invis­i­ble to oth­ers.”
  2. How Col­leges and Sports-Bet­ting Com­pa­nies ‘Cae­sarized’ Cam­pus Life (Anna Betts, Andrew Lit­tle, Eliz­a­beth Sander, Alexan­dra Tremayne-Pen­gel­ly & Walt Bog­danich, New York Times): “The deals came togeth­er large­ly in pri­vate, The Times found, with min­i­mal dis­cus­sion on cam­pus about their poten­tial impact on stu­dents, ath­letes and the integri­ty of col­lege sports.”
    • I love that the lead author is named Betts.
  3. AI Con­quers Diplo­ma­cy (Alex Tabar­rok, Mar­gin­al Rev­o­lu­tion): “Keep in mind that since the game is zero-sum to do well the AI must con­vince humans to do what is NOT in their inter­est. We real­ly do need to invest more in the align­ment prob­lem.”
  4. Respons­es to the pro­posed “Respect for Mar­riage Act”
    • No respect for reli­gious free­dom in the “Respect for Mar­riage Act” (Kris­ten Wag­goner, World): “[This leg­is­la­tion] fuels hos­til­i­ty towards Amer­i­cans who hold beliefs about mar­riage root­ed in hon­or­able or philo­soph­i­cal premises.It impos­es a new oblig­a­tion to rec­og­nize same-sex rela­tion­ships on reli­gious orga­ni­za­tions that work close­ly with gov­ern­ment. It cre­ates new tools for pro­gres­sive activists and the Depart­ment of Jus­tice to enforce that oblig­a­tion. It gives the Inter­nal Rev­enue Ser­vice a new argu­ment for tak­ing tax-exempt sta­tus away from reli­gious non-prof­its. It makes reli­gious free­dom and free speech cas­es hard­er to win by ele­vat­ing the fed­er­al government’s inter­est in same-sex mar­riage.”
    • Why I Changed My Mind About Law and Mar­riage, Again (David French, The Dis­patch): “I agree with Uni­ver­si­ty of Vir­ginia pro­fes­sor Dou­glas Lay­cock. ‘The act con­tains “impor­tant pro­tec­tions” for reli­gious lib­er­ty, includ­ing “an explic­it state­ment by Con­gress that “diverse beliefs about the role of gen­der in marriage”—including the belief that mar­riage is between a man and woman rather than between per­sons of the same sex—“are held by rea­son­able and sin­cere peo­ple based on decent and hon­or­able philo­soph­i­cal premis­es” and that such beliefs “are due prop­er respect.“ ‘ Oth­er pro­vi­sions pro­vide pro­tec­tions for the tax exemp­tions for reli­gious orga­ni­za­tions, hold that reli­gious orga­ni­za­tions don’t have to par­tic­i­pate in the sol­em­niza­tion of same-sex mar­riages, and specif­i­cal­ly reject the approach of the Equal­i­ty Act, which sought to under­mine the Reli­gious Free­dom Restora­tion Act.”
    • Respect For Mar­riage Act: An Impru­dent Com­pro­mise (Rod Dreher, The Amer­i­can Con­ser­v­a­tive): “[Law­mak­ers] have to make their polit­i­cal deci­sions rec­og­niz­ing the social and cul­tur­al real­i­ties of con­tem­po­rary Amer­i­ca, a coun­try where a major­i­ty of young peo­ple prize sex­u­al auton­o­my more than reli­gious lib­er­ty, and who love gay more than God. That’s not like­ly to get any bet­ter, and is in fact like­ly to get far worse. What then? I don’t iden­ti­fy with David French’s eager­ness to com­pro­mise, and I would draw the lines of com­pro­mise in dif­fer­ent places … but French seems to under­stand the shaky ground on which Chris­t­ian trads stand bet­ter than a lot of peo­ple who are right about mar­riage do.” Dreher is respond­ing to a dif­fer­ent arti­cle by French than the one below, which was print­ed a day lat­er.
    • An Open Let­ter to Those Who Think I’ve Lost My Chris­t­ian Faith (David French, The Dis­patch): “…read the text of the bill. Does that lan­guage tru­ly give the IRS a ‘new argu­ment for tax­ing tax-exempt sta­tus away’? And does the act cre­ate ‘new tools for pro­gres­sive activists and the Depart­ment of Jus­tice’ to enforce an oblig­a­tion to rec­og­nize same-sex mar­riages on ‘reli­gious orga­ni­za­tions that work close­ly with gov­ern­ment’? [It does not.]”
  5. Two arti­cles describ­ing how out-of-con­trol euthana­sia is get­ting in some coun­tries:
    • Sched­uled to Die: The Rise of Canada’s Assist­ed Sui­cide Pro­gram (Rupa Sub­ra­manya, Bari Weis­s’s Sub­stack): “Next March, the gov­ern­ment is sched­uled to expand the pool of eli­gi­ble sui­cide-seek­ers to include the men­tal­ly ill and ‘mature minors.’ Accord­ing to Canada’s Depart­ment of Jus­tice, par­ents are gen­er­al­ly ‘enti­tled to make treat­ment deci­sions on their children’s behalf. The mature minor doc­trine, how­ev­er, allows chil­dren deemed suf­fi­cient­ly mature to make their own treat­ment deci­sions.…’ Dr. Dawn Davies, a pal­lia­tive care physi­cian who sup­port­ed MAiD when it was first con­ceived, said she had ‘tons of wor­ries’ about where this might lead. She could imag­ine kids with per­son­al­i­ty dis­or­ders or oth­er men­tal health issues say­ing they want­ed to die. ‘Some of them will mean it, some of them won’t,’ she said. ‘And we won’t nec­es­sar­i­ly be able to dis­cern who is who.’ ”
    • “Safe­guards” Can­not Make Euthana­sia Safe (Robert Clarke, First Things): “There is a clear slip­pery slope from approv­ing euthana­sia in rare ter­mi­nal cas­es to approv­ing just about any men­tal health diag­noses. Twen­ty-three-year-old Shan­ti de Corte was recent­ly euth­a­nized due to the men­tal trau­ma she suf­fered from the 2016 Brus­sels air­port ter­ror­ist attack, after which she ‘nev­er felt safe.’ Her death sig­nals our society’s fail­ure to sup­port the vul­ner­a­ble and wound­ed. We have aban­doned authen­tic care and com­pas­sion in favor of death.”
  6. Mega­lopo­lis: how coastal west Africa will shape the com­ing cen­tu­ry (Howard W French, The Guardian): “By 2100, the Lagos-Abid­jan stretch is pro­ject­ed to be the largest zone of con­tin­u­ous, dense habi­ta­tion on earth, with some­thing in the order of half a bil­lion peo­ple [all in one giant mega­lopo­lis].”

Less Serious Things Which Also Interested/Amused Glen

Things Glen Found Interesting A While Ago

Every week I’ll high­light an old­er link still worth your con­sid­er­a­tion. This week we have Are the Wages of Sin Real­ly Death?: Moral and Epi­demi­o­log­ic Obser­va­tions (David Lyle Jef­frey and Jeff Levin, Chris­t­ian Scholar’s Review): “So, are the wages of sin real­ly death? As far as pop­u­la­tion-health research sug­gests, the answer is a guard­ed yes.” The authors are pro­fes­sors at Bay­lor, one of epi­demi­ol­o­gy and the oth­er of lit­er­a­ture. From vol­ume 250. I know I shared it recent­ly. It’s worth shar­ing again.

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.

Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 377

things which grabbed my atten­tion

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.

This is vol­ume 377, the 14th Fibonac­ci num­ber.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. sprawl­ing along the way: a polemic and an exhor­ta­tion (Alan Jacobs, per­son­al blog): “When­ev­er Chris­tians decide that they need a strat­e­gy, they’re writ­ing a recipe for dis­obe­di­ence to the Lord Jesus. As Stan­ley Hauer­was has always said in response to peo­ple who say that the Church needs a social strat­e­gy, ‘the Church is a social strat­e­gy.…’ The Church’s job is to be the Church, and the Christian’s task is to be like Christ, and strate­gies invari­ably get in the way of both.”
    • This is insight­ful.
  2. How Should Chris­tians Speak in Pub­lic? (Tim Keller, Mere Ortho­doxy): “The fruit of the Spir­it includes love, joy and peace, patience and kind­ness, and humil­i­ty. These must be evi­dent as we speak about the gospel pub­licly. Right now, the most pop­u­lar pub­lic fig­ures show con­fi­dence and fear­less­ness but not love and humil­i­ty. We can­not fol­low in that train.”
    • Dif­fi­cult to excerpt fair­ly.
  3. Does edu­ca­tion ‘cure’ peo­ple of faith? The data says no (Ryan Burge, Reli­gion News): “Those who are the most like­ly to be reli­gious­ly unaf­fil­i­at­ed are those with the low­est lev­els of for­mal edu­ca­tion. The group that is the most like­ly to align with a faith tra­di­tion? Those who have earned a col­lege degree or more.”
    • This is one of those true things that peo­ple have a hard time believ­ing.
  4. Iran and Chi­na Use Pri­vate Detec­tives to Spy on Dis­si­dents in Amer­i­ca (Ben­jamin Weis­er and & William K. Rash­baum, New York Times): “Across Amer­i­ca, inves­ti­ga­tors are increas­ing­ly being hired by a new kind of client — author­i­tar­i­an gov­ern­ments like Iran and Chi­na attempt­ing to sur­veil, harass, threat­en and even repa­tri­ate dis­si­dents liv­ing law­ful­ly in the Unit­ed States, law enforce­ment offi­cials said.”
  5. Ael­la & The Futil­i­ty Of ‘Con­sent’ (Rod Dreher, The Amer­i­can Con­ser­v­a­tive): “I’ve heard that ‘but ani­mals can’t con­sent!’ argu­ment from peo­ple before, as a defense against nor­mal­iz­ing bes­tial­i­ty, and it has nev­er made sense. You think ani­mals can con­sent to being eat­en?”
    • I remem­ber when I first talked with a stu­dent who seri­ous­ly claimed that con­sent was the only moral rule applic­a­ble to sex. I was so stunned I don’t think I had the where­with­al to laugh. It’s such an absurd claim.
  6. Lep­rosy: Ancient dis­ease able to regen­er­ate organs (James Gal­lagher, BBC): “Ani­mal exper­i­ments have uncov­ered the bac­te­ri­a’s remark­able abil­i­ty to almost dou­ble the size of liv­ers by stim­u­lat­ing healthy growth. It is a sneak­i­ly self­ish act that gives the bac­te­ria more tis­sue to infect. But work­ing out how they do it could lead to new age-defy­ing ther­a­pies, the sci­en­tists say.”
    • This is super cool! I hope it pans out.
  7. The top 10 most-regret­ted col­lege majors — and the degrees grad­u­ates wish they had pur­sued instead (Jes­si­ca Dick­ler, CNBC): “Com­put­er sci­ence majors, with an aver­age annu­al start­ing salary of almost $100,000, were the hap­pi­est over­all, accord­ing to ZipRecruiter. Stu­dents who majored in crim­i­nol­o­gy, engi­neer­ing, nurs­ing, busi­ness and finance also felt very good about their choic­es.”

Less Serious Things Which Also Interested/Amused Glen

Things Glen Found Interesting A While Ago

Every week I’ll high­light an old­er link still worth your con­sid­er­a­tion. This week we have Reli­gious Lib­er­ty and the Com­mon Good (Nation­al Affairs, William Haun): “Many of today’s pro­gres­sives, con­ser­v­a­tives, and lib­er­tar­i­ans [can­not] explain why reli­gion in par­tic­u­lar and reli­gious exer­cise in par­tic­u­lar should shape the com­mon good, even when they go against the grain of sec­u­lar visions adopt­ed in law.” Not light read­ing but worth­while. The author is a lawyer for the Beck­et Fund. From vol­ume 248

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.

Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 376

My favorite line from this week: “Men bond by insult­ing each oth­er and not real­ly mean­ing it; women bond by com­pli­ment­ing each oth­er and not real­ly mean­ing it.”

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.

This, vol­ume 376, is an auto­mor­phic num­ber because when raised to a pow­er it ends in itself. 3762 = 141376. It con­tin­ues: 3763 = 53157376 and so on. 37615 = 424441337012461701988020381601157349376 and so on.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. The Male-War­rior Hypoth­e­sis (Rob Hen­der­son, Sub­stack): “…young human males often address each oth­er with abu­sive insults. The rit­u­al tests the strength of the friend­ship. If light­heart­ed ver­bal quips do not dam­age the rela­tion­ship, then the bonds are like­ly rel­a­tive­ly strong. In con­trast, women and girls sel­dom insult their friends, and often work extra hard to praise them to avoid any signs of hos­til­i­ty. Men bond by insult­ing each oth­er and not real­ly mean­ing it; women bond by com­pli­ment­ing each oth­er and not real­ly mean­ing it.”
    • This arti­cle is engross­ing even if you already know the gist.
  2. The Fever Is Break­ing (David Brooks, New York Times): “The sin­gle most impor­tant result of this elec­tion was the tri­umph of the normies. Estab­lish­men­tar­i­an, prac­ti­cal lead­ers who are not always scream­ing angri­ly at you did phe­nom­e­nal­ly well, on right and left: Mike DeWine in Ohio, Josh Shapiro in Penn­syl­va­nia. Work­man­like incum­bents from John Thune in South Dako­ta to Ron Wyden in Ore­gon had suc­cess­ful nights. Gov. Tony Evers of Wis­con­sin had the quo­ta­tion that sum­ma­rized the elec­tion: ‘Bor­ing wins.’ ”
    • Relat­ed (in that it is about pol­i­tics): 3 Prin­ci­ples for Set­tling Polit­i­cal Spats in the Church (Daniel K. Williams, Chris­tian­i­ty Today): “Any attempt to make soci­ety more moral through leg­is­la­tion will inevitably be selec­tive and incom­plete and may offer mixed results. Which major polit­i­cal par­ty in the Unit­ed States is com­mit­ted to address­ing the prob­lems of divorce, gam­bling addic­tions, mar­i­tal infi­deli­ty, and alco­hol abuse? Which par­ty will do the most to pro­tect the poor from being exploit­ed through pay­day loans? Which par­ty will fight against the pornog­ra­phy indus­try? If you haven’t seen any polit­i­cal ads this elec­tion sea­son that address any of these issues, per­haps that’s a sign of the moral selec­tiv­i­ty in our cur­rent par­ti­san pol­i­tics.”
    • The author is a his­to­ry pro­fes­sor at the Uni­ver­si­ty of West Geor­gia. Empha­sis in orig­i­nal.
  3. A Tra­di­tion of Anti-Tra­di­tion­al­ists (Mark Bauer­lein, First Things): “All the talk in the human­i­ties back then turned on ‘open­ing up the canon’ and break­ing up the dom­i­nance of Dead White Males—less John Dry­den and more Aphra Behn, more diver­si­ty and few­er idols—but in the the­o­ry area, these fig­ures were as canon­i­cal as the saints.… What this bias has pro­duced is two gen­er­a­tions of col­lege teach­ers who don’t real­ize their bias. They got a nar­row edu­ca­tion that they trust­ed was the broad­est one. They gen­uine­ly don’t know that anoth­er crit­i­cal tra­di­tion besides the progressive/transgressive one exists.” This essay is a bulls­eye.
    • Relat­ed: An Exis­ten­tial Threat to Doing Good Sci­ence (Lua­na Maro­ja, Bari Weis­s’s Sub­stack): “The restric­tion of aca­d­e­m­ic free­dom comes in two forms: what we teach and what we research. Let’s start with teach­ing. I need to empha­size that this is not hypo­thet­i­cal. The cen­so­ri­ous, fear­ful cli­mate is already affect­ing the con­tent of what we teach.”
    • There’s a Stan­ford con­nec­tion in this sec­ond arti­cle, btw. The arti­cle is an adap­ta­tion of a speech giv­en at a pri­vate con­fer­ence at Stan­ford quite recent­ly.
  4. Con­tra Res­i­dent Con­trar­i­an On Unfal­si­fi­able Inter­nal States (Scott Alexan­der, Astral Codex Ten): “But in the sto­ries these peo­ple told me, it was more about — they found that this effort was pro­duc­ing some­thing unex­pect­ed, and devel­op­ing new per­son­al­i­ty aspects that they need­ed, so they kept going. If you take one step towards Darth Vad­er, he will take two steps toward you (sor­ry if I am sound­ing like a Sith youth pas­tor).”
    • This is absolute­ly fas­ci­nat­ing and the excerpt does not do it any jus­tice. Rec­om­mend­ed.
  5. New Endorse­ments for Col­lege Ath­letes Resur­face an Old Con­cern: Sex Sells (Kurt Streeter, New York Times): “Haley Jones, an All-Amer­i­ca guard at Stan­ford and a can­di­date for the Play­er of the Year Award, said she didn’t want to play up sex appeal. Her endorse­ment income is dri­ven by a social media image that por­trays her as a light­heart­ed stu­dent-ath­lete with­out an overt­ly provoca­tive tone.”
    • Inter­est­ing in its own right, also a stronger Stan­ford angle than I expect­ed.
  6. It’s Always a ‘Neg­a­tive World’ for Chris­tian­i­ty (David French, The Dis­patch): “One of [the] core con­ser­v­a­tive Chris­t­ian cri­tiques of Amer­i­can cul­ture is that Amer­i­ca is grow­ing ever-more hos­tile to the authen­tic Chris­t­ian faith. We’ve left a friend­ly and hos­pitable past, and now we’re con­fronting a hos­tile future.… But this analy­sis is fun­da­men­tal­ly wrong. It’s dan­ger­ous­ly wrong. It’s wrong not because the present moment is par­tic­u­lar­ly hos­pitable to the Chris­t­ian faith, but because it fun­da­men­tal­ly mis­un­der­stands both Amer­i­can his­to­ry and Amer­i­can Chris­ten­dom, and it fun­da­men­tal­ly mis­un­der­stands the per­ma­nent coun­ter­cul­tur­al real­i­ty of authen­tic Chris­tian­i­ty.”
  7. Pay­walls or Con­stant Intru­sive Ads: Pick One (Fred­die deBoer, Sub­stack): “And I also want to say, if you’re annoyed that you can’t get past a pay­wall — tough. Because an era of ris­ing pay­walls is absolute­ly nec­es­sary if you want writ­ing to sur­vive as a pro­fes­sion, and if you want good jour­nal­ism and analy­sis to endure.”

Less Serious Things Which Also Interested/Amused Glen

Things Glen Found Interesting A While Ago

Every week I’ll high­light an old­er link still worth your con­sid­er­a­tion. This week we have The Small World Net­work of Col­lege Class­es: Impli­ca­tions for Epi­dem­ic Spread on a Uni­ver­si­ty Cam­pus (Wee­den & Corn­well, Soci­o­log­i­cal Sci­ence): “If one chose a giv­en stu­dent at ran­dom, that stu­dent is like­ly to attend class with a stu­dent who, in turn, attends class with any oth­er ran­dom­ly cho­sen stu­dent. Put dif­fer­ent­ly, although it is unlike­ly that any two ran­dom­ly cho­sen stu­dents would be enrolled in the same course, it is high­ly like­ly that they would be enrolled in dif­fer­ent cours­es that both include the same third par­ty.“

The authors, pro­fes­sors at Cor­nell, were curi­ous about the poten­tial for dis­ease spread among under­grads at their school. Tak­ing this in a com­plete­ly dif­fer­ent direc­tion: the aver­age stu­dent at Stan­ford is like­ly only one or two steps away from Chi Alpha. WOW! Invite your friends! From vol­ume 246

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.

Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 374

More Stan­ford-relat­ed links than nor­mal, includ­ing an absolute­ly wild one about a fake stu­dent.

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.

Accord­ing to peo­ple who know such things, 374 is the small­est num­ber that can be expressed as the sum of 3 pos­i­tive squares 8 dif­fer­ent ways: 374 = 1^2 + 7^2 + 18^2 = 2^2 + 3^2 + 19^2 = 2^2 + 9^2 + 17^2 = 3^2 + 13^2 + 14^2 = 5^2 + 5^2 + 18^2 = 6^2 + 7^2 + 17^2 = 6^2 + 13^2 + 13^2 = 7^2 + 10^2 + 15^2

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. Stan­ford-relat­ed:
    • Inside “Stanford’s War On Fun”: Ten­sions mount over University’s han­dling of social life (Theo Bak­er, Stan­ford Dai­ly): “The stu­dent said the Uni­ver­si­ty is ‘exces­sive­ly bureau­crat­ic’ and those try­ing to host events are ‘burnt out’ from try­ing to nav­i­gate a rule­set that ‘has expand­ed and [adds] chal­lenges that don’t need to be there.’ Har­ris, who also respond­ed on behalf of the Office of Stu­dent Engage­ment, wrote that the Uni­ver­si­ty has worked to expand social oppor­tu­ni­ties. ‘Stu­dent Affairs, stu­dent lead­ers, and cam­pus part­ners have been work­ing earnest­ly to pro­vide many and vibrant social options for under­grad­u­ates this fall,’ Har­ris wrote.”
    • Imposter stu­dent caught, removed from Crothers Hall (Cas­sidy Dal­va, Theo Bak­er and Ori­ana Riley, Stan­ford Dai­ly): “Stu­dents liv­ing in the dorm told The Dai­ly Thurs­day night that the man, who iden­ti­fied him­self as William Cur­ry, has lived in the dorm since the sec­ond week of the quar­ter, social­ized with the oth­er res­i­dents and was let into the dorm reg­u­lar­ly by sym­pa­thet­ic RAs.”
    • The Review Inter­views Dr. Scott Atlas (Stan­ford Review): “I want to high­light that lock­downs were not the stan­dard pan­dem­ic pre­scrip­tion (nei­ther in 2006, nor in ear­li­er pan­demics). It was known that they were extreme­ly harm­ful. Also, I want to high­light that the uni­ver­si­ty-side of sci­ence became high­ly politi­cized, pos­si­bly because it was an elec­tion year. I was warned by Stan­ford pro­fes­sors that I should not help the Pres­i­dent. This was moral­ly repug­nant: to let peo­ple die sim­ply because you didn’t like the cur­rent admin­is­tra­tion.”
    • A Closed Dis­cus­sion on Aca­d­e­m­ic Free­dom? (Colleen Fla­her­ty, The Chron­i­cle of High­er Edu­ca­tion): “Con­fer­ence orga­niz­ers told FIRE that they’d invit­ed numer­ous pro­gres­sives to par­tic­i­pate [in the con­fer­ence at Stan­ford], Per­ri­no also said, but over time ‘more con­ser­v­a­tives said yes, and very few of the big-name pro­gres­sives said yes. The polit­i­cal polar­iza­tion and trib­al­ism is dispir­it­ing.’ Abbot said that orga­niz­ers invit­ed sev­er­al dozen pro­gres­sives who’d pre­vi­ous­ly expressed a ‘neg­a­tive view’ of aca­d­e­m­ic free­dom, who ulti­mate­ly declined.”
  2. Don’t Even Go There (James Lee, City Jour­nal): “A pol­i­cy of delib­er­ate igno­rance has cor­rupt­ed top sci­en­tif­ic insti­tu­tions in the West. It’s been an open secret for years that pres­ti­gious jour­nals will often reject sub­mis­sions that offend pre­vail­ing polit­i­cal orthodoxies—especially if they involve con­tro­ver­sial aspects of human biol­o­gy and behavior—no mat­ter how sci­en­tif­i­cal­ly sound the work might be.”
    • The author is a pro­fes­sor of Psy­chol­o­gy, Bioin­for­mat­ics and Com­pu­ta­tion­al Biol­o­gy at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Min­neso­ta.
    • Relat­ed: Blas­phe­my is dead. Long live blas­phe­my (Mary Har­ring­ton, Sub­stack): “…if some­thing looks a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s prob­a­bly a duck. And when a move­ment with an instant­ly recog­nis­able sym­bol, a dis­tinc­tive meta­physics (iden­ti­ty pre­cedes biol­o­gy, all desire must be cel­e­brat­ed) and a cal­en­dar of feast days cel­e­brat­ed by gov­ern­ments, cor­po­ra­tions, uni­ver­si­ties and pub­lic bod­ies acquires the abil­i­ty to pun­ish those who deface its sym­bols, the only pos­si­ble thing you can call it is an emerg­ing faith — one with a tight­en­ing grip on insti­tu­tion­al pow­er across the West.”
  3. Most trans chil­dren just going through a phase, advis­es NHS (Eleanor Hay­ward, The Times of Lon­don): “Most chil­dren iden­ti­fy­ing as trans­gen­der are sim­ply going through a ‘tran­sient phase’, new NHS guid­ance states. Doc­tors car­ing for young­sters dis­tressed about their gen­der have been told that it is not a ‘neu­tral act’ to help them tran­si­tion social­ly by using their pre­ferred new names or pro­nouns.”
  4. New­som vs. DeSan­tis Is Our Inevitable Cul­ture War (Ross Douthat, New York Times): “…in gen­er­al you need lib­er­al­ism plus some over­ar­ch­ing vision to sus­tain sol­i­dar­i­ty, ener­gy and hope. And you def­i­nite­ly need the ‘plus’ to ful­ly resolve ques­tions like, ‘Is abor­tion a form of mur­der or a fun­da­men­tal right?’ or ‘Is it child abuse to give teenagers puber­ty block­ers or child abuse to refuse them?’ ”
  5. Woman: My Dad Was Ser­i­al Killer; I Helped Bury the Bod­ies (Arden Dier, News­er): “Studey says she long ago went to ‘law enforce­ment all over Iowa and Nebras­ka try­ing to get some­thing done’ but ‘they could­n’t trust the mem­o­ry of a child.’ Yet her mem­o­ry is vivid. She says her father would kill sex work­ers and tran­sients, often in the fam­i­ly’s trail­er, then get his chil­dren to help move the bod­ies using a wheel­bar­row or tobog­gan.”
  6. Mayra Flo­res Pre­vent­ed From Join­ing the Con­gres­sion­al His­pan­ic Cau­cus (Julio Rosas, Town­hall): “Flo­res is not only first Mex­i­can-born woman to serve in Con­gress, but she also rep­re­sents a dis­trict along the U.S.-Mexico bor­der that is over­whelm­ing­ly Lati­no.… The CHC’s web­site web­sites states the Cau­cus ‘address­es nation­al and inter­na­tion­al issues and crafts poli­cies that impact the His­pan­ic com­mu­ni­ty. The func­tion of the Cau­cus is to serve as a forum for the His­pan­ic Mem­bers of Con­gress to coa­lesce around a col­lec­tive leg­isla­tive agen­da.’ The web­site does not state in its ‘About’ sec­tion that only Democ­rats can join the orga­ni­za­tion.”
    • Lat­er in the arti­cle we learn “Sim­i­lar­ly, Rep. Byron Don­alds (R‑FL) was pre­vent­ed from join­ing the Con­gres­sion­al Black Cau­cus last year.”
    • This is fas­ci­nat­ing to me and I share it in an entire­ly non-par­ti­san way. I some­times hear state­ments from these cau­cus­es and while I assumed they lean Demo­c­rat because their con­stituen­cy over­whelm­ing­ly leans Demo­c­rat, I had no idea Repub­li­cans were lit­er­al­ly for­bid­den from join­ing them.
  7. Nan­cy Pelosi: Intrud­er was search­ing for US Speak­er in attack on hus­band (Sam Cabral, BBC): “Paul Pelosi, 82, was tak­en to hos­pi­tal after a break-in at their Cal­i­for­nia home on Fri­day morn­ing. The sus­pect has been iden­ti­fied as a 42-year-old man and is fac­ing crim­i­nal charges includ­ing attempt­ed homi­cide. He broke a glass rear door and — after con­fronting Mr Pelosi — report­ed­ly shout­ed: ‘Where is Nan­cy?’ ” Yikes!

Less Serious Things Which Also Interested/Amused Glen

Things Glen Found Interesting A While Ago

Every week I’ll high­light an old­er link still worth your con­sid­er­a­tion. This week we have Are Mor­mons Chris­tians?: A Review of “The Saints of Zion: An Intro­duc­tion to Mor­mon The­ol­o­gy” (Tim Miller, Detroit Bap­tist The­o­log­i­cal Sem­i­nary): “He makes clear that Mor­mons are not Chris­tians, but does so by point­ing out that this has been the claim of the Mor­mon church itself through­out his­to­ry (despite recent attempts to argue dif­fer­ent­ly).” From vol­ume 244.

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.

Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 370

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.

This is vol­ume 370, a nar­cis­sis­tic num­ber (some­times also called an Arm­strong num­ber). It has three dig­its, and when you raise each dig­it to the third pow­er they sum to the orig­i­nal num­ber: 370 = 33 + 73 + 03. There are only 88 nar­cis­sis­tic num­bers in base 10, and only 4 of those have three dig­its (153, 370, 371, and 407).

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. YouTube May Force You to Watch 10 (or More) Unskip­pable Ads in a Row (Ted Gioia, Sub­stack): “This, my friends, is the web we asked for. We want­ed every­thing for free—but what we real­ly got was a swamp where all the costs are still there, just hid­den. And the expe­ri­ence we have gained from oth­er indus­tries where prices are most­ly hid­den from view—healthcare is the most obvi­ous exam­ple, but of course there are others—is that this usu­al­ly turns out to be the most expen­sive trans­ac­tion of them all.”
    • This is real­ly good!
  2. For Sub­ur­ban Texas Men, a Work­out Craze With a Side of Faith (Ruth Gra­ham, New York Times): “This is F3 — that’s fit­ness, fel­low­ship and faith — a fast-grow­ing net­work of men’s work­outs that com­bine exer­cise with spir­i­tu­al­ly inflect­ed cama­raderie.… I first heard about F3 through a few acquain­tances in Texas, men who spoke about their local groups with the zeal of evan­ge­lists. It remind­ed me of how urban women used to talk with me about Soul­Cy­cle, only these guys were sub­ur­ban fathers.”
    • A Short Sto­ry of Men (David French, The Dis­patch): “What is the short sto­ry of mod­ern men? Life has changed for­ev­er. Ide­o­logues pull men and boys into destruc­tive and unsus­tain­able extremes. Yet vir­tu­ous pur­pose can still be found in the fun­da­men­tal build­ing blocks of the good life. Only a man can be a hus­band, only a man can be a father, and men need male friends. If a man can fill those roles with integri­ty and courage, then doubts about his mas­culin­i­ty should not ever dark­en his heart.”
    • This is a response piece inspired by the above sto­ry about F3.
  3. The Chero­kee Nation is again call­ing on Con­gress to deliv­er on a 200-year-old promise (Harmeet Kaur, CNN): “The Chero­kee Nation is renew­ing its cam­paign for rep­re­sen­ta­tion in Con­gress, call­ing on fed­er­al leg­is­la­tors to hon­or a treaty that the US gov­ern­ment made near­ly 200 years ago. In a video released last week, the trib­al nation reassert­ed its demand that Con­gress seat its del­e­gate in the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives – a right stip­u­lat­ed by the 1835 Treaty of New Echo­ta.”
    • From what I can tell this is a legit claim: the treaty was approved by the US Sen­ate even though shady things hap­pened on the the Chero­kee side (the treaty was entered into by Chero­kees not autho­rized to nego­ti­ate on behalf of their tribe). I don’t know why this is con­tro­ver­sial: Amer­i­ca took the land, we need to hon­or all the terms of the deal.
  4. ‘Out of con­trol’ STD sit­u­a­tion prompts call for changes (Mike Sto­bbe, Asso­ci­at­ed Press): “New syphilis infec­tions plum­met­ed in the U.S. start­ing in the 1940s when antibi­otics became wide­ly avail­able. They fell to their low­est ever by 1998, when few­er than 7,000 new cas­es were report­ed nation­wide. The CDC was so encour­aged by the progress it launched a plan to elim­i­nate syphilis in the U.S. But by 2002 cas­es began ris­ing again, large­ly among gay and bisex­u­al men, and they kept going. In late 2013, CDC end­ed its elim­i­na­tion cam­paign in the face of lim­it­ed fund­ing and esca­lat­ing cas­es, which that year sur­passed 17,000. By 2020 cas­es had reached near­ly 41,700 and they spiked even fur­ther last year, to more than 52,000.”
    • That’s a 26% jump just last year!
    • As STD rates explode, are we still sure God’s way isn’t bet­ter? (Peter Heck, Not The Bee): “There’s more to the Chris­t­ian sex­u­al eth­ic than a despot­ic list of don’ts. There’s a holis­tic and healthy ide­al that includes rec­og­niz­ing the per­son you are dat­ing is some­one’s future spouse and should be treat­ed with the same dig­ni­ty that we would want anoth­er treat­ing our future spouse. There’s an endur­ing com­men­da­tion of the for­ma­tion of life­long, lov­ing rela­tion­ships built not upon tawdry lusts but self-sac­ri­fi­cial com­mit­ment; the recog­ni­tion that love is not some­thing we feel, but some­thing we do. There’s a self-con­trol that pro­tects human­i­ty and lib­er­ates it from sick­ness and suf­fer­ing. It’s God’s way…”
    • I often think upon this fact: if the Chris­t­ian sex­u­al eth­ic were uni­ver­sal­ly observed for one gen­er­a­tion STDs would be essen­tial­ly elim­i­nat­ed.
  5. Illib­er­al­ism Is For (Cul­tur­al) Losers (Bri­an Matt­son, Sub­stack): “Illib­er­al­ism, the deep desire to deny to oth­ers their rights of con­science and belief and prop­er­ty that we our­selves enjoy and to force them into con­for­mi­ty to our vision of the com­mon good by way of coer­cive State pow­er is the last resort of losers. Cul­tur­al losers. Abi­gail Adams would judge that such peo­ple are unfit for lib­er­ty; or at least they are peo­ple who can’t accom­plish any­thing fruit­ful with it. I have a bet­ter idea. Reform our weak insti­tu­tions, and where we can­not, we build bet­ter ones and be cul­tur­al win­ners.”
  6. An ‘us’ vs. ‘them’ men­tal­i­ty on cam­pus­es turns poten­tial friends into allies — or ene­mies (Pamela Paresky and Samuel J. Abrams, Boston Globe): “Accord­ing to an NBC poll released in August, only 20 per­cent of col­lege sopho­mores sur­veyed said they can def­i­nite­ly see them­selves room­ing with some­one who vot­ed dif­fer­ent­ly than they did in the 2020 pres­i­den­tial elec­tion. And more than half said they prob­a­bly or def­i­nite­ly couldn’t see them­selves dat­ing such a stu­dent. Cam­pus cul­ture seems to fur­ther social dis­con­nec­tion rather than fos­ter friend­ship across the polit­i­cal divide.”
    • The authors are schol­ars of psy­chol­o­gy and pol­i­tics, respec­tive­ly. I read this one most­ly because the thumb­nail pre­view is of Stan­ford.
  7. The ‘Liz­zo Play­ing James Madis­on’s Flute’ Con­tro­ver­sy: A Blogger’s Analy­sis (Nick Catog­gio, The Dis­patch): “H ad you heard of Madison’s flute before Liz­zo played it? I hadn’t. I’d heard of her but not it. It was she who lent celebri­ty to the instru­ment, not vice ver­sa. You may find that dispir­it­ing, although I’m not sure why any of us should have base­line knowl­edge about a ran­dom gift giv­en to James Madi­son that played no mean­ing­ful role in Amer­i­can his­to­ry. Me, I’m thrilled to have learned about it via this episode. A crys­tal flute! Made for the father of the Con­sti­tu­tion! Played for the first time in 200 years by a celebrity—totally ran­dom­ly! It wouldn’t sur­prise me if it turns out to have mag­i­cal pow­ers and Liz­zo has now been pos­sessed by Madison’s ghost. Which, if so, would make her next con­cert a must-see. But I digress. The last rea­son this sto­ry is instant blog fod­der is because, per the fore­go­ing, it’s quirky as all hell.”

Less Serious Things Which Also Interested/Amused Glen

Things Glen Found Interesting A While Ago

Every week I’ll high­light an old­er link still worth your con­sid­er­a­tion. This week we have The Nuclear Fam­i­ly Was a Mis­take (David Brooks, The Atlantic): “If you want to sum­ma­rize the changes in fam­i­ly struc­ture over the past cen­tu­ry, the truest thing to say is this: We’ve made life freer for indi­vid­u­als and more unsta­ble for fam­i­lies. We’ve made life bet­ter for adults but worse for chil­dren. We’ve moved from big, inter­con­nect­ed, and extend­ed fam­i­lies, which helped pro­tect the most vul­ner­a­ble peo­ple in soci­ety from the shocks of life, to small­er, detached nuclear fam­i­lies (a mar­ried cou­ple and their chil­dren), which give the most priv­i­leged peo­ple in soci­ety room to max­i­mize their tal­ents and expand their options. The shift from big­ger and inter­con­nect­ed extend­ed fam­i­lies to small­er and detached nuclear fam­i­lies ulti­mate­ly led to a famil­ial sys­tem that lib­er­ates the rich and rav­ages the work­ing-class and the poor.” High­ly rec­om­mend­ed. From vol­ume 238.

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.

Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 365

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.

This is vol­ume 365, which is the num­ber of days in most years. In oth­er words, I’ve done the equiv­a­lent of work­ing on this email dai­ly for a year. In real­i­ty I just add a lit­tle bit every day as I’m read­ing things, but it’s still a big sta­tis­tic.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. I’m 30. The Sex­u­al Rev­o­lu­tion Shack­led My Gen­er­a­tion. (Louise Per­ry, Bari Weis­s’s Sub­stack): “We need to re-erect the social guard rails that have been torn down. To do that, we have to start by stat­ing the obvi­ous: Sex must be tak­en seri­ous­ly. Men and women are dif­fer­ent. Some desires are bad. Con­sent is not enough. Vio­lence is not love. Love­less sex is not empow­er­ing. Peo­ple are not prod­ucts. Mar­riage is good. And, above all, lis­ten to your moth­er.”
    • Warn­ing: the head­er pic­ture is risque but the arti­cle is worth it. The author is not a Chris­t­ian and unsur­pris­ing­ly comes to some non-Chris­t­ian con­clu­sions — still fas­ci­nat­ing to see a force­ful sec­u­lar rejec­tion of the sex­u­al rev­o­lu­tion.
  2. Racism-relat­ed:
    • Black cou­ple sues after they say home val­u­a­tion ris­es near­ly $300,000 when shown by White col­league (Justin Gam­ble and Vir­ginia Lang­maid, CNN): “Con­nol­ly and Mott lat­er re-applied with anoth­er lender, and ‘white­washed’ their home, accord­ing to the law­suit. This includ­ed remov­ing pho­tos of their Black fam­i­ly from the home, and hav­ing a White col­league present the prop­er­ty to the apprais­er. The suit claims this val­u­a­tion came back at $750,000, more than a quar­ter of a mil­lion dol­lars high­er than 20/20 Val­u­a­tions’ appraisal of $472,000.”
    • In California’s largest race bias cas­es, Lati­no work­ers are accused of abus­ing Black col­leagues (Mar­got Roo­sevelt, Los Ange­les Times): “Though the agency tracks the race and eth­nic­i­ty of vic­tims, it does not com­pile offi­cial sta­tis­tics on offend­ers. Nor are there data­bas­es of pri­vate cas­es cat­e­go­rized by per­pe­tra­tors’ race. This makes it hard to gauge the extent of anti-Black hos­til­i­ty from Lati­no work­ers. But court fil­ings, vic­tims’ alle­ga­tions and employ­er records show that in the last decade, about a third of anti-Black bias suits filed by the EEOC’s Los Ange­les and San Fran­cis­co offices involved dis­crim­i­na­tion by Lati­nos, about a third involved white offend­ers and a third were unspe­cif­ic.”
  3. Chris­t­ian Polit­i­cal Ethics Are Upside Down (David French, The Dis­patch): “…both the Repub­li­can and Demo­c­ra­t­ic par­ties are utter­ly depen­dent upon their most devout mem­bers for their elec­toral suc­cess. As I’ve not­ed before, non­white Democ­rats (and espe­cial­ly black Democ­rats) are among the most God-fear­ing, church­go­ing mem­bers of Amer­i­can soci­ety. At the same time, the Repub­li­can Par­ty would be irrel­e­vant with­out its own white Evan­gel­i­cal base. The bot­tom line is that Chris­tians in both par­ties have absolute veto pow­er over (at the very least) the party’s nation­al can­di­dates.”
  4. Silent cri­sis of soar­ing excess deaths grip­ping Britain is only tip of the ice­berg (Sarah Knap­ton, The Tele­graph via Yahoo News): “For 14 of the past 15 weeks, Eng­land and Wales have aver­aged around 1,000 extra deaths each week, none of which are due to Covid. If the cur­rent tra­jec­to­ry con­tin­ues, the num­ber of non-Covid excess deaths will soon out­strip deaths from the virus this year – and be even more dead­ly than the omi­cron wave. So what is going on? Experts believe deci­sions tak­en by the Gov­ern­ment in the ear­li­est stages of the pan­dem­ic may now be com­ing back to bite. Poli­cies that kept peo­ple indoors, scared them away from hos­pi­tals and deprived them of treat­ment and pri­ma­ry care are final­ly tak­ing their toll.”
  5. The Rise of the Work­er Pro­duc­tiv­i­ty Score (Jodi Kan­tor and Arya Sun­daram, New York Times): “…two years ago, her employ­er start­ed requir­ing chap­lains to accrue more of what it called ‘pro­duc­tiv­i­ty points.’ A vis­it to the dying: as lit­tle as one point. Par­tic­i­pat­ing in a funer­al: one and three-quar­ters points. A phone call to griev­ing rel­a­tives: one-quar­ter point.”
  6. Good con­ver­sa­tions have lots of door­knobs (Adam Mas­troian­ni, Sub­stack): “Con­ver­sa­tion­al affor­dances are things like digres­sions and con­fes­sions and bold claims that beg for a rejoin­der. Talk­ing to anoth­er per­son is like rock climb­ing, except you are my rock wall and I am yours. If you reach up, I can grab onto your hand, and we can both hoist our­selves sky­ward. Maybe that’s why a real­ly good con­ver­sa­tion feels a lit­tle bit like float­ing. What mat­ters most, then, is not how much we give or take, but whether we offer and accept affor­dances.” The author has a PhD in psy­chol­o­gy from Har­vard and is doing a post­doc at Colum­bia study­ing con­ver­sa­tions.
    • Relat­ed: Why Your Social Life Is Not What It Should Be (David Brooks, New York Times): “…most of us are sys­tem­at­i­cal­ly mis­tak­en about how much we will enjoy a social encounter. Com­muters expect­ed to have less pleas­ant rides if they tried to strike up a con­ver­sa­tion with a stranger. But their actu­al expe­ri­ence was pre­cise­ly the oppo­site. Peo­ple ran­dom­ly assigned to talk with a stranger enjoyed their trips con­sis­tent­ly more than those instruct­ed to keep to them­selves. Intro­verts some­times go into these sit­u­a­tions with par­tic­u­lar­ly low expec­ta­tions, but both intro­verts and extro­verts tend­ed to enjoy con­ver­sa­tions more than rid­ing solo.”
  7. Put Down the Woke Man’s Bur­den (James Han­k­ins, First Things): “The Har­vard being whipped along by the admin­is­tra­tive caste, by con­trast, resem­bles the Children’s Cru­sade of the Mid­dle Ages: wrong cause, wrong army. And it ends up attack­ing the wrong ene­mies.” The author is a his­to­ry pro­fes­sor at Har­vard.
    • Relat­ed: Harvard’s Sta­tus as Wealth­i­est School Faces Oil-Rich Con­tender in the Uni­ver­si­ty of Texas (Janet Lorin & Ser­gio Cha­pa, Bloomberg): “Oil reached a high of $120 a bar­rel ear­li­er this year as a result of a war-induced ener­gy crunch. The rev­enue is expect­ed to help nar­row the gap between the Texas system’s $42.9 bil­lion endow­ment and Harvard’s $53.2 bil­lion as of June 2021. ‘The Uni­ver­si­ty of Texas has a cash wind­fall when every­one is look­ing at a poten­tial cash crunch,’ said William Goet­z­mann, a pro­fes­sor of finance and man­age­ment stud­ies at Yale University’s School of Man­age­ment. ‘Adjust­ing your port­fo­lio for social con­cerns is not cost­less.’ ”

Less Serious Things Which Also Interested/Amused Glen

Things Glen Found Interesting A While Ago

Every week I’ll high­light an old­er link still worth your con­sid­er­a­tion. This week we have Too much trans­paren­cy makes the world more opaque. (Alex Tabar­rok, Mar­gin­al Rev­o­lu­tion): “The demand for trans­paren­cy seems so innocu­ous. Who could be against greater trans­paren­cy? But trans­paren­cy is inim­i­cal to pri­va­cy. And we care about pri­va­cy in part, because we can be more hon­est and truth­ful in pri­vate than in public.”First shared in vol­ume 233.

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.

Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 364

a mix of links more rar­i­fied and more spicy than nor­mal

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.

This, the 364th install­ment, can also be expressed as the sum of con­sec­u­tive primes: 11 + 13 + 17 + 19 + 23 + 29 + 31 + 37 + 41 + 43 + 47 + 53

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. One Man­ner of Law (Mar­i­lynne Robin­son, Harpers): “Almost fifty years ago, I learned by pure acci­dent that a code of law was drawn up in Mass­a­chu­setts in 1641 that sub­stan­tial­ly antic­i­pat­ed the Bill of Rights. I hap­pened to read a let­ter to the edi­tor in the New York Times that men­tioned the Mass­a­chu­setts Body of Lib­er­ties. I had a PhD by then and was sup­pos­ed­ly an Amer­i­can­ist by train­ing, yet I was learn­ing of this for the first time. When I final­ly read these laws, I won­dered why the nar­ra­tive of Amer­i­can his­to­ry did not begin with them.”
  2. The Girls Who Resist­ed Boko Haram (Jonathon Van Maren, First Things): “While the world demand­ed their return, the cap­tive girls were under relent­less pres­sure to con­vert to Islam and mar­ry mil­i­tants cho­sen for them. They were threat­ened with behead­ing or bru­tal slav­ery if they refused. Many of the girls, par­a­lyzed with fear, suc­cumbed. Oth­ers buck­led under the brain­wash­ing of a mil­i­tant assigned to incul­cate them into the doc­trines of Islam. He forced the ‘daugh­ters of infi­dels’ to take hours-long class­es in which they mem­o­rized the Quran. The girls were told that if they mar­ried, they would receive homes, slaves, and hon­or. In secret, the girls shared Bible pas­sages and prayed fer­vent­ly togeth­er for strength and res­cue. They sang hymns into their hands and cups of water to sti­fle the sound.”
  3. Why I Left Acad­e­mia (Since You’re Won­der­ing) (William Dere­siewicz, Quil­lette): “…it wasn’t so much that I want­ed to be treat­ed dif­fer­ent­ly than every­body as that I want­ed every­body to be treat­ed dif­fer­ent­ly. I want­ed the rules to change; I played by the ones that I thought we should have. I insist­ed on behav­ing as if I exist­ed in an envi­ron­ment that val­ued teach­ing as much as schol­ar­ship and intel­lec­tu­al­ism as much as spe­cial­iza­tion. Where open­ing the eyes of a hun­dred under­grad­u­ates was worth as much as super­vis­ing one more dis­ser­ta­tion, and pub­lish­ing an essay in a peri­od­i­cal that’s read by tens of thou­sands was as valu­able as adding one more item to the pile of dis­re­gard­ed stud­ies.” This is quite good, more rel­e­vant to the human­i­ties than to the sci­ences. 
  4. I Didn’t Want It to Be True, but the Medi­um Real­ly Is the Mes­sage (Ezra Klein, New York Times): “Amer­i­cans are cap­i­tal­ists, and we believe noth­ing if not that if a choice is freely made, that grants it a pre­sump­tion against cri­tique. That is one rea­son it’s so hard to talk about how we are changed by the medi­ums we use. That con­ver­sa­tion, on some lev­el, demands val­ue judg­ments. This was on my mind recent­ly, when I heard Jonathan Haidt, a social psy­chol­o­gist who’s been col­lect­ing data on how social media harms teenagers, say, blunt­ly, ‘Peo­ple talk about how to tweak it — oh, let’s hide the like coun­ters. Well, Insta­gram tried — but let me say this very clear­ly: There is no way, no tweak, no archi­tec­tur­al change that will make it OK for teenage girls to post pho­tos of them­selves, while they’re going through puber­ty, for strangers or oth­ers to rate pub­licly.’ ”
    • Relat­ed: When Bots Write Your Love Sto­ry (Samuel D. James, Sub­stack): “That machines are telling us par­tic­u­lar sto­ries about our world is one of the main rea­sons I keep com­ing back time and again to dig­i­tal cul­ture, epis­te­mol­o­gy, and the­ol­o­gy. Our default pos­ture toward the Inter­net is still, to this day, a pos­ture of intu­itive belief: to gen­uine­ly accept that what we see on the screen is a piece of ‘real life,’ rep­re­sen­ta­tive of some­one who is real­ly some­where. And in many cas­es, of course, this is more or less true. But there are also very real cas­es where the inten­si­ty or the vivid­ness of what we see online is dis­pro­por­tion­ate to its weight or valid­i­ty out­side.”
    • Relat­ed: Speech With­out Account­abil­i­ty: Reck­on­ing with Anony­mous Chris­t­ian Trolls (Patrick Miller, Mere Ortho­doxy): “…there is at least one clear ana­log to anon speech in the Bible that I have not yet touched on: the speech of the ser­pent in Eden. He was the first char­ac­ter in Gen­e­sis to con­ceal his iden­ti­ty in order to cri­tique a person—God him­self. The first anon words in human his­to­ry set human his­to­ry on fire.”
      • This piece is far too long, ram­bles need­less­ly, and at one point says some­thing I think very sil­ly. Nonethe­less, I read to the end with inter­est. The best parts were the reflec­tions on anonymous/disguised speech in the Bible.
    • Relat­ed: The Seat of Mock­ers (Bri­an Matt­son, Sub­stack): “The defend­ers and prac­ti­tion­ers of smash-mouth incen­di­ary rhetoric insist that we must do this so as to ade­quate­ly com­bat the world and the infil­tra­tion of world­li­ness into the church. It seems to me that in real­i­ty, it is the world and the infil­tra­tion of world­li­ness into the church.” This is quite good, and I found it by fol­low­ing a link in the pre­ced­ing point.
  5. Some links relat­ed to the ongo­ing sex­u­al rev­o­lu­tion, most­ly crit­i­cal:
    • Chris­tians Vol­un­teer­ing Pro­nouns? (Andrew T. Walk­er, Amer­i­can Reformer): “We should name the pro­noun issue for what it is: A lan­guage game. Lan­guage is about nam­ing real­i­ty. Pro­nouns of any sort are instru­ments that indi­vid­u­als use to wield pow­er. Pro­nouns pos­sess pow­er only because the cul­ture we live in deems one’s cho­sen indi­vid­ual iden­ti­ty to be absolute­ly cen­tral to who one is. Pro­nouns serve the sub­jec­tive self, so if one rejects another’s cho­sen pro­nouns, it is doubtless­ly inter­pret­ed as reject­ing the person’s attempt at self-descrip­tion and self-auton­o­my. That’s what this is all fun­da­men­tal­ly about—creating a pri­vate field of real­i­ty defined by the wish­es and fan­tasies of indi­vid­u­als who know they can pro­voke sub­mis­sion for fear of can­cel­la­tion. We should be clear-eyed about this and refuse to go along with it.”
    • Zoophil­ia: The Last Taboo Will Fall (Rod Dreher, The Amer­i­can Con­ser­v­a­tive): “Seri­ous­ly, how do you stop legal­iz­ing zoophil­ia, espe­cial­ly in a pop­u­lar cul­ture in which inter­nal bar­ri­ers with­in the mass­es will have been bro­ken down by wide­spread hard­core pornog­ra­phy? ‘What does my neigh­bor’s habit of being corn­holed by his Ger­man shep­herd have to do with my mar­riage?’ say the nitwit lib­er­tar­i­ans. ‘Ani­mals can’t con­sent!’ squeal the nitwit lib­er­als, though I hope they have the sense not to say so with their mouth full of ham.”
      • This is a well-doc­u­ment­ed piece and the updates at the end are very much worth read­ing, espe­cial­ly the Scalia quote.
    • I Regret Being A Slut (Brid­get Pheta­sy, Sub­stack): “I know regret­ting most of my sex­u­al encoun­ters is not some­thing a sex-pos­i­tive fem­i­nist who used to write a col­umn for Play­boy is sup­posed to admit. And for years, I didn’t. Let me be clear, being a ‘slut’ and sleep­ing with a lot of men is not the only behav­ior I regret. Even more dam­ag­ing was what I told myself in order to jus­ti­fy the fact that I was dis­pos­able to these men: I told myself I didn’t care. I didn’t care when a man ghost­ed me. I didn’t care when he left in the mid­dle of the night or hint­ed that he want­ed me to leave. The walks of shame. The black­outs. The anx­i­ety. The lie I told myself for decades was: I’m not in pain—I’m empow­ered. Look­ing back, it isn’t a sur­prise that I lied to myself. Because from a young age, sex was some­thing I was lied to about.” This is in no way a Chris­t­ian arti­cle — but it is inter­est­ing.
    • Mon­key­pox And The Face Of Gay Promis­cu­ity (Rod Dreher, The Amer­i­can Con­ser­v­a­tive): “I remem­ber being told by the media that gay men were vast­ly more promis­cu­ous than straight men because soci­ety com­pelled them to be. Nor­mal­ize homo­sex­u­al­i­ty and grant same-sex mar­riage, and that would change. I nev­er believed it because I knew per­fect­ly well that gay men were insane­ly promis­cu­ous not because they were gay, but because they were men. An ordi­nary male unre­strained by reli­gious or moral scru­ple, and faced with a wide vari­ety of will­ing part­ners who demand no emo­tion­al com­mit­ment, or even to know one’s name, before hav­ing sex — that man will like­ly behave exact­ly as most gay men do.”
      • WARNING — the pic­ture in the link is jar­ring. The com­ments at the end are quite inter­est­ing and not at all what most observers would expect — Dreher real­ly does appre­ci­ate his audi­ence even when they dis­agree with him.
  6. ‘Dis­turb­ing’: Experts trou­bled by Canada’s euthana­sia laws (Maria Cheng, Wash­ing­ton Post): “Cana­da prides itself on being lib­er­al and accept­ing, said David Jones, direc­tor of the Anscombe Bioethics Cen­tre in Britain, ‘but what’s hap­pen­ing with euthana­sia sug­gests there may be a dark­er side.’”
  7. As India marks its first 75 years, Gand­hi is down­played, even derid­ed (Ger­ry Shih, Wash­ing­ton Post): “Today, at ral­lies of Hin­du nation­al­ist hard-lin­ers, Gand­hi is rou­tine­ly vil­i­fied as fee­ble in his tac­tics against the British and over­ly con­cil­ia­to­ry to India’s Mus­lims, who broke off and formed their own state, Pak­istan, on Aug. 14, 1947. On social media and online forums, exag­ger­a­tions and false­hoods abound about Gandhi’s alleged betray­al of Hin­dus. And in pop­u­lar films and the polit­i­cal main­stream, Gand­hi and Jawa­har­lal Nehru — the first prime min­is­ter — are side­lined, while nation­al­ists who advo­cat­ed the force of arms have been ele­vat­ed.”

Less Serious Things Which Also Interested/Amused Glen

Things Glen Found Interesting A While Ago

Every week I’ll high­light an old­er link still worth your con­sid­er­a­tion. This week we have  Hav­ing Kids (Paul Gra­ham, per­son­al blog): “I remem­ber per­fect­ly well what life was like before. Well enough to miss some things a lot, like the abil­i­ty to take off for some oth­er coun­try at a moment’s notice. That was so great. Why did I nev­er do that? See what I did there? The fact is, most of the free­dom I had before kids, I nev­er used. I paid for it in lone­li­ness, but I nev­er used it.” First shared in vol­ume 233.

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.

Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 360

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.

360 is, of course, the num­ber of degrees in a cir­cle. It’s also due north on a com­pass.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. The God Gap Helps Explain a ‘Seis­mic Shift’ in Amer­i­can Pol­i­tics (David French, Sub­stack): “Count­less polit­i­cal and cul­tur­al issues don’t have a clear ‘Chris­t­ian’ pol­i­cy solu­tion, yet when a party’s mem­bers per­ceive it to be the par­ty of Amer­i­can Chris­tian­i­ty, then the plat­form is wrong­ly infused with reli­gious fer­vor, even on issues (like tax rates, gun pol­i­cy, envi­ron­men­tal pol­i­cy, for­eign pol­i­cy, and count­less oth­ers) where the cor­rect reli­gious answer is far from clear.”
    • The excerpt is not the main point, which is also good. High­ly rec­om­mend­ed.
  2. I’m a Scam Pre­ven­tion Expert, and I Got Scammed (Natasha Lupinia, per­son­al web­site): “This scam went against every­thing I thought I knew about social engi­neer­ing attacks. The caller was pro­fes­sion­al, knowl­edge­able, patient, and easy to under­stand (con­nec­tion issues notwith­stand­ing). He had so much infor­ma­tion about me already that, even know­ing how easy it is to find sen­si­tive infor­ma­tion about peo­ple, I was inclined to take him at face val­ue…”
    • Rec­om­mend­ed by an alum­nus.
  3. A clus­ter of links which touch on com­mon col­lege sce­nar­ios:
    • Bomb­shell alco­hol study fund­ed by Bill & Melin­da Gates Foun­da­tion finds only risks, zero ben­e­fits for young adults (Chloe Tay­lor, For­tune): “Researchers said that for peo­ple aged between 15 and 39, the rec­om­mend­ed amount of alco­hol that could be con­sumed before risk­ing their health was ‘a lit­tle more than one-tenth of a stan­dard drink.’ They defined a stan­dard drink as 3.4 flu­id ounces of red wine or 12 flu­id ounces of beer.”
    • When We Con­sent, We Shouldn’t Feel Ter­ri­ble After, Right? (Emma Camp, New York Times): “Con­sent edu­ca­tion takes already anx­ious, inex­pe­ri­enced young peo­ple, and gives them a sim­plis­tic, bina­ry way of under­stand­ing sex. It’s no sur­prise then that many of us have absorbed the mes­sage that sex is a straight­for­ward trans­ac­tion with lit­tle room for com­pli­cat­ed feel­ings — and that we’re con­fused when we expe­ri­ence the inevitable com­pli­ca­tions that sex­u­al inti­ma­cy brings.”
      • A cri­tique of uni­ver­si­ty mes­sag­ing around sex. It does­n’t say all I would like, but it accu­rate­ly iden­ti­fies prob­lems with the cur­rent sys­tem.
    • First base is hook­ing up, sec­ond base is talk­ing, third base is going on a date and fourth base is dat­ing (Rob Hen­der­son, Sub­stack): “In terms of attrac­tive­ness, the bot­tom 80% of men are com­pet­ing for the bot­tom 22% of women and the top 78% of women are com­pet­ing for the top 20% of men.”
      • Fas­ci­nat­ing through­out.
    • Pro­nouns: Progressivism’s Pre­pos­ter­ous Plight (Farhana K, Tra­vers­ing Tra­di­tion): “With­out the abil­i­ty to define a woman as female, for exam­ple, encroach­ment into women’s only spaces will become com­mon­place. There is no way for the state to pro­tect the needs and wants of women, because noth­ing is essen­tial to being a woman and no defin­i­tive fea­ture of women that require such pro­tec­tions, because a woman is any­one who defines them­selves as one. Yet for the Mus­lim woman who abides by the shar’i com­mands to veil from unre­lat­ed men and min­i­mize phys­i­cal con­tact, increas­ing­ly decon­struc­tive atti­tudes to gen­der will pose a clash that few pol­i­cy­mak­ers and mem­bers of the pub­lic have had the strength to accom­mo­date.”
      • Inter­est­ing to see a Mus­lim per­spec­tive.
  4. The Great Fic­tion of AI (Josh Dzieza, The Verge): “…it might not be such a bad thing to have to apply a Tur­ing test to every­thing I read, par­tic­u­lar­ly in the more com­mer­cial­ized mar­ket­ing-dri­ven cor­ners of the inter­net where AI text is most often deployed. The ques­tions it made me ask were the sorts of ques­tions I should be ask­ing any­way: is this sup­port­ed by facts, inter­nal­ly con­sis­tent, and orig­i­nal, or is it coast­ing on pleas­ant-sound­ing lan­guage and rehash­ing con­ven­tion­al wis­dom?; how much human writ­ing meets that stan­dard?; how often am I read­ing with enough atten­tion to notice? If this is the epis­temic cri­sis AI-gen­er­at­ed text is going to bring, maybe it’s a healthy one.”
    • I found this one super inter­est­ing and some­what amaz­ing.
  5. The Hypocrisy of Elites (Erik Toren­berg, Sub­stack): “…we see this every­where: elites pro­mote body pos­i­tiv­i­ty — the idea that being over­weight is healthy — while being most obsessed with main­tain­ing per­fect health. Elites pro­mote sex­u­al inde­pen­dence and polyamory, yet them­selves are most like­ly to be monog­a­mous in sta­ble long-term rela­tion­ships. Elites com­plain about over­pop­u­la­tion and car­bon foot­print, but they’re the ones hav­ing the most kids and inflict­ing the largest car­bon foot­print.”
  6. The Fall of His­to­ry as a Major–and as a Part of the Human­i­ties (Tan­ner Greer, per­son­al blog): “Amer­i­can cul­ture has lost faith in his­to­ry as a vehi­cle for under­stand­ing the human expe­ri­ence. Our high cul­ture ques­tions the very con­cept of shared human expe­ri­ence. It is hard for history—or any of the humanities—to flour­ish in a world that does not put much stock in the human. By adopt­ing inter­sec­tion­al ide­ol­o­gy as their own, the pro­fes­sion­al human­ists have con­firmed that they do not believe in the promise of their own dis­ci­pline. And if they do not believe in it…. why should any 18 year old stu­dent?” This is an extra­or­di­nar­i­ly insight­ful essay.
  7. 33 Prob­lems With Media in One Chart (Nick Rout­ley, Visu­al Cap­i­tal­ist): rec­om­mend­ed by an alum­nus. I now know what astro­turf­ing is.

Less Serious Things Which Also Interested/Amused Glen

Things Glen Found Interesting A While Ago

Every week I’ll high­light an old­er link still worth your con­sid­er­a­tion. This week we have The Dis­hon­esty of the Abor­tion Debate (Caitlin Flana­gan, The Atlantic): “The argu­ment for abor­tion, if made hon­est­ly, requires many words: It must evoke the recent past, the dire con­se­quences to women of mak­ing a very sim­ple med­ical pro­ce­dure ille­gal. The argu­ment against it doesn’t take even a sin­gle word. The argu­ment against it is a pic­ture…. 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.” First shared in vol­ume 227. I know I shared this recent­ly in light of the Dobbs deci­sion, and it is def­i­nite­ly worth shar­ing again.

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.