Tag: America

Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 367

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 the 367th install­ment, notable because 367 is a prime num­ber and also the largest num­ber whose square is com­posed of strict­ly increas­ing dig­its: 3672 = 134689.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. Social­ism, Nation­al­ism, and Tolkien (Alec Dent, The Dis­patch): “In our time of unprece­dent­ed wealth and safe­ty, the once-defeat­ed foe of illib­er­al­ism has made a reap­pearence.… due large­ly to a lack of appre­ci­a­tion for how good we have things right now, a lack of under­stand­ing of how we got here, and a lack of under­stand­ing of how a rad­i­cal over­haul of soci­ety would alter the world as we know it.”
  2. The Despo­tism of Isa­ias Afew­er­ki (Alex de Waal, The Baf­fler): “…fight­ers protest­ed the deci­sion that they should con­tin­ue to serve with­out pay for two more years. A group of dis­abled vet­er­ans marched—there’s no verb that con­veys the deter­mined col­lec­tive motion of their wheel­chairs, arti­fi­cial limbs, and sticks—towards the cap­i­tal to demand their pen­sions. They were shot at with live ammu­ni­tion. Some were killed, oth­ers were arrest­ed and dis­ap­peared.”
    • I’d heard before that Eritrea was worse than North Korea in some ways, but this arti­cle real­ly drove it home. Wow.
  3. Why Peo­ple Are Los­ing Faith In Pub­lic Insti­tu­tions (Rod Dreher, The Amer­i­can Con­ser­v­a­tive): “…if you relied on the Post to tell you about the world you actu­al­ly live in, it would not have occurred to you that there is any oth­er side to the library sto­ry than the vir­tu­ous pink-haired queer librar­i­an and her allies ver­sus the mob of big­ots. If you are on the Left, isn’t it in your inter­est to under­stand why peo­ple are so upset, even if you don’t agree with them? Isn’t it in your inter­est to at least think about why the peo­ple of a town would rather defund their library rather than see it used in this way?”
    • This one is wild and Dreher, as they say, has the receipts.
  4. Can an Athe­ist Be a Moral Real­ist? (J. Budziszews­ki, per­son­al blog): “…I can’t see how you can be an athe­ist and a moral real­ist at the same time. It is like eat­ing a cake and still hav­ing it. If nat­u­ral­ism is true, then aren’t we just meat bags full of water with no dig­ni­ty? My friend says I am car­i­ca­tur­ing his posi­tion. Am I miss­ing some­thing, or is he?”
    • This is well argued. The author is a pro­fes­sor of gov­ern­ment and phi­los­o­phy at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Texas.
  5. Trump should fill Chris­tians with rage. How come he doesn’t? (Michael Ger­son, Wash­ing­ton Post): “I know that peo­ple inspired by [Jesus] have done great things in the past — build­ing hos­pi­tals for the poor, improv­ing the rights of women and chil­dren, mil­i­tat­ing against slav­ery, car­ing for the men­tal­ly dis­abled, work­ing for a mer­ci­ful wel­fare state, fight­ing prej­u­dice, improv­ing glob­al health. But pre­cise­ly because these things have hap­pened, it is dif­fi­cult for me to com­pre­hend why so many Amer­i­can evan­gel­i­cals have reject­ed the splen­dor and romance of their call­ing and set­tled for the cul­tur­al and polit­i­cal resent­ments of the hard right.”
    • Long and a bit ram­bly, nonethe­less inter­est­ing.
  6. Pub­lish­ing needs JK Rowl­ing to be a mon­ster (Vic­to­ria Smith, The Crit­ic Mag­a­zine): “The trou­ble with JK Rowl­ing is that she has done noth­ing wrong. Back in 2020, she wrote a care­ful­ly word­ed, com­pas­sion­ate piece about sex and gen­der.… This is a sit­u­a­tion in which the pun­ish­ment has cre­at­ed the crime and it’s one that is need­ed by mem­bers of the pub­lish­ing indus­try who have spent years embrac­ing the argu­ments of the most extreme trans activists while ignor­ing those of fem­i­nists. They need Rowl­ing to be a mon­ster. Oth­er­wise they might have to respond, not just to what Rowl­ing has writ­ten, but to the real­i­ties of the move­ment to which they have pledged alle­giance.”
  7. Died: Queen Eliz­a­beth II, British Monarch Who Put Her Trust in God (Dud­ley Delffs, Chris­tian­i­ty Today): “The Queen’s love of the Bible and its gospel mes­sage led to her par­tic­i­pa­tion in the pub­li­ca­tion of a spe­cial book to com­mem­o­rate her 90th birth­day. Titled The Ser­vant Queen and the King She Serves.… Her Majesty per­son­al­ly wrote the fore­word, thank­ing read­ers for their prayers and good wish­es. ‘I have been—and remain—very grate­ful to … God for His stead­fast love. I have indeed seen His faith­ful­ness,’ she wrote. The book was dis­trib­uted to thou­sands of church­es across the UK and through­out many Com­mon­wealth coun­tries pri­or to the Queen’s birth­day in 2016. The book proved so pop­u­lar that the Bible Soci­ety had to print anoth­er 150,000 copies to meet demand.”

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 Big Data+Small Bias « Small Data+Zero Bias (Alex Tabar­rok, Mar­gin­al Rev­o­lu­tion): “Sup­pose you want to esti­mate who will win the 2016 US Pres­i­den­tial elec­tion. You ask 2.3 mil­lion poten­tial vot­ers whether they are like­ly to vote for Trump or not. The sam­ple is in all ways demo­graph­i­cal­ly rep­re­sen­ta­tive of the US vot­ing pop­u­la­tion but poten­tial Trump vot­ers are a tiny bit less like­ly to answer the ques­tion, just .001 less like­ly to answer (note they don’t lie, they just don’t answer).” I was stunned. From vol­ume 234.

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 363

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 num­ber 363, which can be rep­re­sent­ed as 31 + 32 + 33 + 34 + 35

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. Why aren’t smart peo­ple hap­pi­er? (Adam Mas­troian­ni, Sub­stack): “My grand­ma does not know how to use the ‘input’ but­ton on her TV’s remote con­trol, but she does know how to raise a fam­i­ly full of good peo­ple who love each oth­er, how to car­ry on through a tragedy, and how to make the per­fect pump­kin pie.… Exclud­ing this kind of intel­li­gence from our def­i­n­i­tions doesn’t just hurt our grandmas—it hurts us too. If you don’t val­ue the abil­i­ty to solve poor­ly defined prob­lems, you’ll nev­er get more of it. You won’t seek out peo­ple who have that abil­i­ty and try to learn from them, nor will you lis­ten to them when they have some­thing impor­tant to say. You’ll spend your whole life try­ing to solve prob­lems with clev­er­ness when what you real­ly need is wis­dom.”
  2. New York City’s Largest Evan­gel­i­cal Church Plans Bil­lion-Dol­lar Devel­op­ment (Emi­ly Belz, Chris­tian­i­ty Today): “On 10.5 acres of church land, the pro­posed vil­lage would include thou­sands of units of afford­able hous­ing, a trade school, a super­mar­ket, a per­form­ing arts cen­ter, 24/7 child­care for night-shift work­ers, senior liv­ing facil­i­ties, and oth­er ameni­ties designed to revi­tal­ize the East New York neigh­bor­hood.”
    • But I thought church­es were leech­es on soci­ety exploit­ing their tax-exempt sta­tus with­out help­ing their com­mu­ni­ties! I’m sure some­one told me that once. 
  3. When mix­ing faith with fur­ries, things can get hairy (Riley Far­rell, Reli­gion News Ser­vice): “…Chris­tians in the fur­ry com­mu­ni­ty are cau­tious about who knows about both their fur­ry and faith­ful selves. Chris­t­ian fur­ries inter­viewed for this sto­ry, includ­ing lead­ers of the group that calls itself the Chris­t­ian Fur­ry Fel­low­ship, asked to be anony­mous, fear­ing ‘doxxing’ from with­in the large­ly sec­u­lar fur­ry com­mu­ni­ty for their Chris­t­ian iden­ti­ty and ostra­ciza­tion from their pro­fes­sion­al lives for their fur­ry hob­by.”
    • This was by far the most unex­pect­ed arti­cle I read this week. There’s a lot hap­pen­ing here. I draw your atten­tion to my dis­claimers.
  4. Fact-Check­ing Ran­dall Balmer’s Urban Leg­end on the Real Ori­gin of the Reli­gious Right (Jonathan White­head, The Gospel Coali­tion): “By the ear­ly 1970s, Evan­gel­i­cals, Catholics, and oth­er reli­gious vot­ers had dis­cov­ered that pol­i­tics would not leave them alone. Then their con­cerns about abor­tion, gov­ern­ment over­reach in schools, sec­u­lar human­ism at the FCC, and an unre­spon­sive ‘born again’ Pres­i­dent all merged into a sin­gle out­let, cre­at­ing a tor­rent of Repub­li­can vot­ers in 1978 and beyond.”
    • I post­ed a debunk­ing of this claim a while ago, but this one is quite good. And the claim gets repeat­ed enough in cer­tain cir­cles that debunk­ings should be repeat­ed as well.
  5. There Is a Sec­u­lar Case for Life (David French, The Dis­patch): “Amidst a squadron of reli­gious con­ser­v­a­tive lawyers, there was a sin­gle athe­ist pro­gres­sive. He was beard­ed, disheveled, and qui­et, but when he spoke every­one fell silent. Every­one leaned for­ward to hear what he had to say. His name was Nat Hentoff. He was a writer for the Vil­lage Voice; he’d pub­lished in Play­boy. He was a pro­gres­sive civ­il lib­er­tar­i­an. He was also one of the most per­sua­sive pro-life voic­es in the land.”
  6. Yearn­ing for a Banana Repub­lic (Jon­ah Gold­berg, The Dis­patch): “When seri­ous peo­ple talk seri­ous­ly about chang­ing a regime, they’re talk­ing about chang­ing the sys­tem of gov­ern­ment. Regime change in Iraq meant get­ting rid of a total­i­tar­i­an, ter­ror­is­tic dic­ta­tor­ship, not sim­ply replac­ing Sad­dam Hus­sein with a more pli­able and coop­er­a­tive tyrant. America’s regime isn’t on any bal­lot. Sym­bol­i­cal­ly, it is the bal­lot. More prop­er­ly, it is the con­sti­tu­tion­al sys­tem that requires our lead­ers to be elect­ed.”
    • This is straight fire. Not espe­cial­ly par­ti­san but def­i­nite­ly polit­i­cal. Gold­berg is a tremen­dous word­smith.
  7. 1st syn­thet­ic mouse embryos — com­plete with beat­ing hearts and brains — cre­at­ed with no sperm, eggs or womb (Nico­let­ta Lanese, Live Sci­ence): “To achieve this feat, the researchers used only stem cells and a spin­ning device filled with shiny glass vials.”
    • The title is, I think, poor­ly word­ed. These are not embryos assem­bled from raw mate­ri­als; rather, the researchers suc­cess­ful­ly mor­phed a stem cell into an embryo. Which is also amaz­ing!

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  Evangelicalism’s Silent Major­i­ty (Emma Green, The Atlantic): “One of my big take­aways from report­ing on evan­gel­i­cal com­mu­ni­ties is that, con­trary to some stereo­types, evan­gel­i­cals are some of the most glob­al­ly mind­ed peo­ple in Amer­i­ca. They donate to char­i­ties that do exten­sive aid work over­seas. They’re exposed to oth­er coun­tries through mis­sion work or human­i­tar­i­an trips.” First shared in vol­ume 232. (sad­ly, this is pay­walled)

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 362

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.

362 feels like a num­ber that should have lots of fac­tors, but it’s only got the prime fac­tors 2 and 181.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. Explor­ing AI-Assist­ed Bible Study (John Dyer, per­son­al blog): “I prompt­ed GPT‑3 to gen­er­ate text for each chap­ter in the Bible in each cat­e­go­ry. For exam­ple, the prompt to gen­er­ate a prayer was: “Write 5 prayers inspired by John 3 in the Bible. Remem­ber that the events described here are in the past. First include a short obser­va­tion or les­son for each prayer, and then write a per­son­al prayer relat­ed to the les­son.”  I reviewed the gen­er­at­ed text to avoid (or at least min­i­mize) unhelp­ful or hereti­cal con­tent. I accept­ed about 90% of GPT‑3’s sug­ges­tions on its first pass and regen­er­at­ed the rest until it gave me some­thing use­ful. It cost about $150 over six weeks to gen­er­ate this con­tent, which con­sists of 71,062 gen­er­a­tions and 1.1 mil­lion words.”
    • This is the same guy who gen­er­at­ed the AI Bible art­work I shared recent­ly (these and oth­er exper­i­ments of his are avail­able at http://www.openbible.info/labs/).
  2. What an Over­ly Pes­simistic View of Amer­i­ca Gets Wrong (Yascha Mounk inter­view­ing Eboo Patel, Per­sua­sion): “If every insti­tu­tion found­ed by a faith com­mu­ni­ty in your city dis­ap­peared overnight, preschools, hos­pi­tals, and uni­ver­si­ties would be gone. YMCAs would be gone, places where AA groups meet would be gone. Half of your social ser­vices would prob­a­bly be gone. It feels to me that reli­gious iden­ti­ty diver­si­ty should be at the cen­ter of our nation­al con­ver­sa­tion, and I’m curi­ous as to why it’s not.” This con­ver­sa­tion is full of wis­dom and I high­ly rec­om­mend it.
  3. Peo­ple Are Dat­ing All Wrong, Accord­ing to Data Sci­ence (Seth Stephens-Davi­d­owitz, Wired): “Good roman­tic part­ners are dif­fi­cult to pre­dict with data. Desired roman­tic part­ners are easy to pre­dict with data. And that sug­gests that many of us are dat­ing all wrong.”
    • From lat­er in the arti­cle: “…how a per­son answered ques­tions about them­selves was rough­ly four times more pre­dic­tive of their rela­tion­ship hap­pi­ness than all the traits of their roman­tic part­ner com­bined.”
  4. A Cru­cial Court Case Expos­es the Dark­ness of America’s Worst Indus­try (David French, The Dis­patch): “If some­one want­ed to cre­ate a sys­tem that was designed to facil­i­tate the dis­tri­b­u­tion of child pornog­ra­phy, videos of rape and oth­er kinds of abuse, or revenge porn, it would be hard to con­struct a more effi­cient sys­tem than MindGeek’s. And the sheer amount of MindGeek’s traf­fic and the vol­ume of the down­loads demon­strates that Porn­hub and oth­er sites are inject­ing poi­son into Amer­i­can life at an indus­tri­al scale.”
    • A stu­dent rec­om­mend­ed this piece from a month ago in addi­tion to the above: The Fight to Hold Porn­hub Account­able (Shee­lah Kol­hatkar, The New York­er): “Pschorr was sur­prised by the lack of reg­u­la­tion in the U.S. ‘It was always inter­est­ing for me as a Ger­man to see that, in the U.S., you’d get I.D.’d if you went to a bar, and if you’re not twen­ty-one you get in big trou­ble,’ he said. ‘But if you want to con­sume porn all you have to do is click ‘Yes, I’m 18,’ and you’re in the realm of dirt.’ ” I found this arti­cle inter­est­ing because it por­trays Chris­tians both favor­ably and unfa­vor­ably in short order.
  5. How Did a Two-Time Killer Get Out to Be Charged Again at Age 83? (Rebec­ca Davis O’Brien & Ali Watkins, New York Times): “A home­less shel­ter work­er and peo­ple close to Ms. Ley­den ques­tioned whether, despite her gen­der iden­ti­ty, Ms. Har­vey should have been placed in a home­less shel­ter for women, giv­en her his­to­ry of attack­ing and mur­der­ing them.” Read that sen­tence slow­ly. Wow. And the last eight para­graphs are jaw drop­ping.
  6. A large new study offers clues about how low­er-income chil­dren can rise up the eco­nom­ic lad­der. (David Leon­hardt, New York Times): “Church­es and oth­er reli­gious orga­ni­za­tions may have some lessons to teach oth­er parts of soci­ety. Although many church­es are socioe­co­nom­i­cal­ly homo­ge­neous, those with some diver­si­ty tend to fos­ter more cross-class inter­ac­tions than most oth­er social activ­i­ties. Churchs [sic] have low­er lev­els of what the researchers call socioe­co­nom­ic ‘friend­ing bias.’ ”
    • Sad­ly there isn’t more info on the reli­gious dynam­ic, even though this sec­tion of the newslet­ter is called “How Church­es Shine”
    • Although this is a NYT piece, it is not pay­walled because it is from their morn­ing newslet­ter.
  7. Non­de­nom­i­na­tion­al Church­es Are Adding Mil­lions of Mem­bers. Where Are They Com­ing From? (Ryan P. Burge, Chris­tian­i­ty Today): “What is dri­ving the growth of non­de­nom­i­na­tion­al church­es? While in the past it result­ed from a sig­nif­i­cant por­tion of indi­vid­u­als leav­ing a main­line tra­di­tion, now it looks like non­de­nom­i­na­tion­al con­gre­ga­tions are increas­ing by tak­ing in peo­ple who were raised Catholic—which is about a quar­ter of the gen­er­al pop­u­la­tion.”

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 Prob­lem Isn’t the ‘Mer­it,’ It’s the ‘Ocra­cy’ (Tan­ner Greer, per­son­al blog): “The Amer­i­can sys­tem of gov­ern­ment was built on the assump­tion that the most salient polit­i­cal divides would reflect geog­ra­phy, not ide­ol­o­gy or class. The sen­a­tor from Mass­a­chu­setts would share bonds in com­mon with the lay cit­i­zen­ry of Boston that he did not share with a sen­a­tor from South Car­oli­na. On the nation­al sphere this would allow him to rep­re­sent the inter­ests of his con­stituents as if they were his own. This has proven more true at some times in Amer­i­can his­to­ry than oth­ers; yet because of the way Amer­i­can politi­cians are elect­ed, this sense of rep­re­sent­ing the inter­ests of a geo­graph­i­cal­ly bound­ed group of peo­ple is more true in the polit­i­cal are­na than in most oth­ers.” First shared in vol­ume 232

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 361

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 361, which is also the num­ber of inter­sec­tions on a Go board.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. Actu­al­ly Good AI-Gen­er­at­ed Bible Art with DALL·E 2 (John Dyer, per­son­al blog): “The GPT‑3 prompts I used evolved over time, but this one is emblem­at­ic: Sug­gest 5 unique con­cept ideas for a work of visu­al art inspired by Luke 14:7–11 (do not pick the place of hon­or) in the Bible. Include art direc­tion and a spe­cif­ic medi­um and artist to emu­late. Include artists from a vari­ety of eras, styles, and media. Try for an unusu­al per­spec­tive. Title, year, medi­um. Descrip­tion.”
    • Some of these are stun­ning. Rec­om­mend­ed.
  2. Reli­gion Is Dying? Don’t Believe It (Byron R. John­son & Jeff Levin, Wall Street Jour­nal): “Data from five recent U.S. pop­u­la­tion sur­veys point to the vibran­cy, ubiq­ui­ty and growth of reli­gion in the U.S. Amer­i­cans are becom­ing more reli­gious, and reli­gious insti­tu­tions are thriv­ing. Con­sis­tent with some pre­vi­ous stud­ies but con­trary to wide­ly held assump­tions, many peo­ple who report no reli­gious affiliation—and even many self-iden­ti­fied athe­ists and agnostics—exhibit sub­stan­tial lev­els of reli­gious prac­tice and belief.”
    • The authors are pro­fes­sors of social sci­ence and epi­demi­ol­o­gy, respec­tive­ly. I one hun­dred per­cent believe this report. The so-called “rise of the nones” is most­ly the result of con­fir­ma­tion bias by sec­u­lar aca­d­e­mics and jour­nal­ists who find reli­gious­ly com­mit­ted peo­ple annoy­ing.
    • This WSJ arti­cle (which I think is pay­walled) is based on the freely avail­able schol­ar­ly arti­cle: Are Reli­gious “Nones” Real­ly Not Reli­gious?: Revis­it­ing Glenn, Three Decades Lat­er (Levin et al, Inter­dis­ci­pli­nary Jour­nal of Research on Reli­gion): “The use of words and phras­es such as none, no reli­gion, and not reli­gious to describe this group of unaf­fil­i­at­ed indi­vid­u­als is thus inap­pro­pri­ate, inac­cu­rate, and mis­lead­ing.”
  3. Which Sins Are Feed­ing Your Sin of Lust? (David Powli­son, Cross­way): “Tom con­cen­trat­ed all his atten­tion on one mar­quee sin that sur­faced spo­rad­i­cal­ly, defin­ing and ener­giz­ing all his guilty feel­ings. But that nar­row­ing of atten­tion served to mask far more seri­ous, per­va­sive sins. As a pas­tor, friend, or oth­er coun­selor, you don’t want to con­cen­trate all your ener­gies in the same place Tom did. There were oth­er, deep­er oppor­tu­ni­ties for grace and truth to rewrite the script of this man’s life.”
  4. A Media-Fueled Social Pan­ic Over Unmarked Graves (Jonathan Kay, Quil­lette): “It’s now been 14 months since the orig­i­nal announce­ment was made about pre­sumed graves in Kam­loops, and no phys­i­cal evi­dence has been unearthed. No graves. No corpses. No human remains.… I’ve been in jour­nal­ism for a quar­ter cen­tu­ry, and have wit­nessed plen­ty of bizarre con­tro­ver­sies with­in my trade. But I’ve nev­er wit­nessed any­thing sim­i­lar to this phe­nom­e­non. It’s like one of those case-stud­ies in mass hys­te­ria and pop­u­lar delu­sion that you read about in his­to­ry books.”
    • This is not a claim that bad things did­n’t hap­pen. It’s more of a claim that the spe­cif­ic bad things that are alleged did­n’t hap­pen or that they did­n’t hap­pen on the scale wide­ly report­ed.
  5. Chi­na relat­ed:
  6. NHS will SHUT its con­tro­ver­sial Tavi­s­tock trans­gen­der clin­ic for chil­dren after damn­ing report warned it was ‘not safe’ (John Ely and Lau­rence Dol­limore, The Dai­ly Mail): “It fol­lows an announce­ment last month that every child treat­ed for gen­der dys­pho­ria in the last decade will have their med­ical records scru­ti­nised to see if NHS care is caus­ing them more harm than good.”
  7. Hot Takes Don’t Belong in Church (Chris Nye, Chris­tian­i­ty Today): “So long as we are cre­at­ing a palat­able state­ment for social media or Sunday’s ser­mon, we are not pray­ing, wor­ship­ing, or orga­niz­ing our­selves for mean­ing­ful action. But in today’s cul­ture, the appear­ance of moral­i­ty is more impor­tant than moral actions, and speak­ing is more high­ly val­ued than pray­ing.”
    • This is full of good points. Chris is an acquain­tance of mine.

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 This Cul­tur­al Moment (pod­cast): I lis­tened to this pod­cast about fol­low­ing Jesus in the post-Chris­t­ian world upon the rec­om­men­da­tion of some alum­ni and a stu­dent. It’s quite good. Def­i­nite­ly start with episode 1. First shared in vol­ume 231.

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 356

from the week abor­tion fell

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 356, which is a hap­py num­ber (some­thing I learned about only today). A hap­py num­ber is a num­ber whose dig­its when squared sum to 1 if the process is repeat­ed long enough. 356 takes six iter­a­tions.

  1. 356 ==> 32+52+62 = 9+25+36 = 70.
  2. 70 ==> 72+02 = 49.
  3. 49 ==> 42+92 = 16+81 = 97.
  4. 97 ==> 92+72 = 81+49 = 130
  5. 130 ==> 12+32+02 = 1+9+0 = 10
  6. 10 ==> 12 + 02 = 1

I got way more into that than I expect­ed.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. The huge news today is that abor­tion is no longer a con­sti­tu­tion­al right in Amer­i­ca. I expect deep­er analy­ses to appear by next week — most colum­nists appear to be sav­ing their big pieces for the Sun­day papers. Send rec­om­men­da­tions my way!
    • What changed from Jus­tice Alito’s draft opin­ion to final rul­ing on Roe (Kel­ly Hoop­er, Politi­co): “…Ali­to did add to his orig­i­nal opin­ion, with a fierce rebut­tal of the court’s lib­er­al dis­senters, plus a direct shot at Chief Jus­tice John Roberts in the final text. Roberts was the only con­ser­v­a­tive jus­tice on the court to side with its three lib­er­als, mak­ing the final vote 5–4 in the deci­sion to strike down Roe and give states the green light to ban abor­tion.”
    • Supreme Court over­turns con­sti­tu­tion­al right to abor­tion (Amy Howe, SCO­TUS­blog): “Stare deci­sis, Ali­to stressed, ‘is not a strait­jack­et’ when a rul­ing is griev­ous­ly incor­rect.… Notably, the dis­senters fin­ished by not­ing only that they dis­sent­ed, omit­ting the word ‘respect­ful­ly’ that com­mon­ly accom­pa­nies the dis­sent.”
      • A good sum­ma­ry of the opin­ion. The author used to teach at Stan­ford Law School. That last sen­tence is impor­tant.
    • From the right: The Land is Bright (Jake Meador, Mere Ortho­doxy): “Some desire to down­play this vic­to­ry or even to lament the man­ner of it. We should not. Fed­er­al law in Amer­i­ca once rec­og­nized a right to kill unborn chil­dren. Now it does not. Our feel­ings should be unam­bigu­ous: it is a great good that over half the states in our union are soon like­ly to have laws grant­i­ng sweep­ing pro­tec­tions to the unborn. And we can just say that it is good.”
    • From the left: Which rights are next on the Supreme Court’s chop­ping block? (Ian Mill­houser, Vox): “In any event, the future of rights oth­er than abor­tion will like­ly need to be lit­i­gat­ed. There is no doubt that Thomas would hap­pi­ly light many exist­ing rights on fire. And there is lit­tle doubt that Ali­to, based on his Oberge­fell dis­sent, would also hap­pi­ly tear down same-sex mar­riage. But it takes five votes to strip away an exist­ing con­sti­tu­tion­al right, and it remains to be seen whether Jus­tices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Bar­rett — con­ser­v­a­tives who some­times break with Alito’s most aggres­sive attempts to dri­ve the law to the right — will sup­port mass roll­backs of exist­ing rights.”
      • Mill­houser is often hyper­bol­ic and fails to read ideas he dis­agrees with fair­ly, but this is a pret­ty good sum­ma­ry.
    • From the right: The Supreme Court strikes down Roe and Casey (Albert Mohler, World): “…pro-life Amer­i­cans have learned not to assume any­thing and to wait to see any deci­sion in the black and white of plain text. Well, we have the plain text. It is explo­sive. It is earth­shak­ing.… It is an answer to prayer.”
      • The author is a sem­i­nary pres­i­dent and also the pres­i­dent of the Evan­gel­i­cal The­o­log­i­cal Soci­ety.
    • From the left: Get­ting Real About the Post-‘Roe’ World (Scott Lemieux, The Amer­i­can Prospect): “The the­o­ry went that Repub­li­can elites didn’t real­ly want to over­rule Roe, but were mere­ly pre­tend­ing to for the sake of pan­der­ing to their base. This nar­ra­tive was always false; the sur­vival of Roe was always a high­ly con­tin­gent fluke, the prod­uct of sev­er­al mis­takes by Repub­li­can pres­i­dents.”
    • From the right: The Long Bat­tle to Over­turn Roe (Ed Whe­lan, Nation­al Review): “There are at least two large rea­sons that the long bat­tle to over­turn Roe has suc­ceed­ed. First, pro-lif­ers did not heed Casey’s com­mand that they give up on work­ing to defend the lives of unborn human beings, and they remained a pow­er­ful polit­i­cal force in the Repub­li­can par­ty, all the more so as near­ly all Democ­rats had aban­doned the pro-life cause. Sec­ond, the con­ser­v­a­tive legal move­ment grew and flour­ished, thanks in large part to the Fed­er­al­ist Soci­ety and to Jus­tice Scalia and Jus­tice Thomas.”
    • From the left: Repub­li­cans Are Will­ing to Pay a Polit­i­cal Price to Ban Abor­tion. It’s Up to Democ­rats to Make Them Pay It. (Josh Bar­ro, Sub­stack): “After the draft deci­sion leaked, Democ­rats brought a wish-list bill to the floor of both cham­bers that even pro-choice Repub­li­cans — even Sen. Susan Collins — were able to com­fort­ably vote against on the grounds that it was too extreme, more expan­sive than Casey. Democ­rats need to break the agen­da into pieces.… Unlike a catch-all bill, there are many indi­vid­ual ideas about pro­tect­ing abor­tion rights that are very broad­ly pop­u­lar — bring­ing them to the floor puts Repub­li­cans in the posi­tion of either vot­ing for poli­cies to pro­tect abor­tion rights, or going home to defend votes that are actu­al­ly hard to defend in elec­tion cam­paigns.”
      • Both par­ties should do this on a whole host of issues. Pol­i­tics would change quick­ly if our lead­ers gov­erned this way. Bar­ro is right about the shrewd strat­e­gy, but I think it unlike­ly that his par­ty will heed him.
  2. Made in Amer­i­ca: Goods Exports by State (Raul Amoros, Visu­al Cap­i­tal­ist): “Texas has been the top export­ing state in the U.S. for an incred­i­ble 20 years in a row. Last year, Texas export­ed $375 bil­lion worth of goods, which is more than Cal­i­for­nia ($175 bil­lion), New York ($85 bil­lion), and Louisiana ($77 bil­lion) com­bined. The state’s largest man­u­fac­tur­ing export cat­e­go­ry is petro­le­um and coal prod­ucts, but it’s also impor­tant to men­tion that Texas led the nation in tech exports for the ninth straight year. Cal­i­for­nia was the sec­ond high­est exporter of goods in 2021 with a total val­ue of $175 bil­lion, an increase of 12% from the pre­vi­ous year.”
    • Sur­pris­es here, rec­om­mend­ed by an alum­nus. Empha­sis in the orig­i­nal.
  3. Mike Pence and the Chris­t­ian Con­flict on Jan­u­ary 6 (David French, The Dis­patch): “A healthy nation­al cul­ture both con­demns cow­ardice and hon­ors val­or, even when val­or is sim­ply part of the job. And we should do both with an immense mea­sure of humil­i­ty. How many of us have proven our own courage under sim­i­lar cir­cum­stances? Pence faced threats to his fam­i­ly, threats to him­self, threats to his pow­er, and threats to the rest of his career. How many of us have pre­vailed in the face of such pres­sure?  To scorn courage in such cir­cum­stances fur­ther incen­tivizes cow­ardice. At least the cow­ard­ly retain their polit­i­cal pow­er and their polit­i­cal home.”
  4. In Defense of Polit­i­cal Esca­la­tion (Abi­gail Shri­er, Bari Weiss’ Sub­stack): “If our ulti­mate goal is return­ing to a nor­mal­cy in which gov­ern­ment agen­cies and cor­po­ra­tions treat all Amer­i­cans fair­ly regard­less of view­point, how are we to achieve this? At a min­i­mum, we must acknowl­edge that these insti­tu­tions are already weaponized and their artillery points only in one direc­tion: against the oppo­nents of the left.”
    • To my knowl­edge Shri­er is not reli­gious and is in no way con­ser­v­a­tive, but she is artic­u­lat­ing an argu­ment that I see fre­quent­ly on the right (most famous­ly in the French/Ahmari dust­up). It ani­mates Trump­ism and is one of the rea­sons DeSan­tis is so pop­u­lar on the right and that Amer­i­can con­ser­v­a­tives have such a fas­ci­na­tion with Orban in Hun­gary.
  5. Pen­te­costals’ Polit­i­cal War­fare (Miguel Pet­rosky, The Reveal­er): “Issues like abor­tion and same-sex mar­riage, and even fears of creep­ing ‘Marx­ism,’ have long been of con­cern to some fac­tions of Amer­i­can con­ser­vatism. But in parts of the Pen­te­costal and charis­mat­ic world, these issues con­tain cos­mic impli­ca­tions for the country’s rela­tion­ship with God. In the Hebrew Scrip­tures, each of Israel’s kings either ‘did what was right’ or ‘did what was evil’ in the eyes of God—with either bless­ings or curs­es for the king­dom. Since Pen­te­costals view them­selves as being a con­tin­u­a­tion of the bib­li­cal nar­ra­tive, they are cer­tain God will judge Amer­i­ca by the issues they view as stray­ing from the Bible.”
  6. Leaked Audio From 80 Inter­nal Tik­Tok Meet­ings Shows That US User Data Has Been Repeat­ed­ly Accessed From Chi­na (Emi­ly Bak­er-White, Buz­zFeed News): “Law­mak­ers’ fear that the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment will be able to get its hands on Amer­i­can data through ByteDance is root­ed in the real­i­ty that Chi­nese com­pa­nies are sub­ject to the whims of the author­i­tar­i­an Chi­nese Com­mu­nist Par­ty, which has been crack­ing down on its home­grown tech giants over the last year. The risk is that the gov­ern­ment could force ByteDance to col­lect and turn over infor­ma­tion as a form of ‘data espi­onage.’ There is, how­ev­er, anoth­er con­cern: that the soft pow­er of the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment could impact how ByteDance exec­u­tives direct their Amer­i­can coun­ter­parts to adjust the levers of TikTok’s pow­er­ful ‘For You’ algo­rithm, which rec­om­mends videos to its more than 1 bil­lion users. Sen. Ted Cruz, for instance, has called Tik­Tok ‘a Tro­jan horse the Chi­nese Com­mu­nist Par­ty can use to influ­ence what Amer­i­cans see, hear, and ulti­mate­ly think.’ ”
  7. Quest to Con­quer a Dis­ease (Amy Lynn Smith, AG News): “Gib­son met Hong as he ate lunch with anoth­er intern in the stu­dent union. Hong asked to join them, and after­ward Gib­son and Hong began meet­ing for tea or cof­fee every week. Gib­son learned that Hong, the night before he intro­duced him­self, had a dream in which a man encour­aged Hong to meet peo­ple on cam­pus. Hong lat­er came to rec­og­nize the man in the dream as Jesus. A friend­ship devel­oped between Hong and Gib­son.”
    • This is about two of our alum­ni: Dan Gib­son, who did his min­istry train­ing with Chi Alpha Stan­ford sev­er­al years ago, and Guosong “Frank” Hong who did his PhD here and is now a pro­fes­sor.

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 How To Ask Your Men­tors For Help (Derek Sivers): this is super-short and very good. Excerpt­ing it would ruin it. Read the whole thing. First shared in vol­ume 224.

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 348

A reminder not to be cool plus oth­er provo­ca­tions.

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.

348 is the sum of four con­sec­u­tive primes: 79 + 83 + 89 + 97 = 348.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. “Extra­or­di­nary claims require extra­or­di­nary evi­dence”… And oth­er stu­pid state­ments (C. Michael Pat­ton, Cre­do House): “ ‘Extra­or­di­nary claims require extra­or­di­nary evi­dence.’ While this may seem like sound rea­son­ing at first glance, it fails in sig­nif­i­cant ways. Try using this phrase and switch out the mod­i­fi­er. What if I said, ‘phys­i­cal claims require phys­i­cal evi­dence.’ Or what about this: ‘mirac­u­lous claims require mirac­u­lous evi­dence’? How about ‘canine claims require canine evi­dence’? Of course, you would see the fal­la­cy right away. The equiv­o­ca­tion cre­ates an appar­ent pro­fun­di­ty that mis­di­rects our sens­es. In every case claims just need evi­dence.”
  2. In Praise of the Bor­ing, Uncool Church (Brett McCrack­en, Gospel Coali­tion): “It seems almost every ‘leader of Chris­t­ian cool’—whether a tat­tooed celebri­ty pas­tor or a buzzy night­club church—flames out and los­es its foot­ing fair­ly quick­ly. Which is not at all sur­pris­ing. By their very nature, things that are cool are ephemer­al. What’s fash­ion­able is, by the neces­si­ty of the rules of fash­ion, quick­ly obso­lete. This is one of many rea­sons why chas­ing cool is a fool’s errand for church­es and pas­tors…”
  3. Unex­pect­ed neg­a­tive impacts of COVID:
    • Report: 26 Mil­lion Amer­i­cans Stopped Read­ing the Bible Reg­u­lar­ly Dur­ing COVID-19 (Adam MacIn­nis, Chris­tian­i­ty Today): “Plake thinks the dra­mat­ic change shows how close­ly Bible reading—even inde­pen­dent Bible reading—is con­nect­ed to church atten­dance. When reg­u­lar ser­vices were inter­rupt­ed by the pan­dem­ic and relat­ed health man­dates, it impact­ed not just the cor­po­rate bod­ies of believ­ers but also indi­vid­u­als at home.”
    • Researchers: COVID-19, Israel-Gaza war fueled anti­semitism (Lau­rie Kell­man, AP News): “The study com­piled data from 22 coun­tries. French author­i­ties, for instance, report­ed a 36% jump in anti­se­mit­ic inci­dents involv­ing phys­i­cal vio­lence, from 44 to 60. The Unit­ed King­dom saw a 78% jump in inci­dents of assault, from 97 to 173. The num­ber of anti­se­mit­ic inci­dents in Cana­da rose 54%, from 173 to 266, the report said.… [In Amer­i­ca] The Anti-Defama­tion League count­ed 2,717 anti­se­mit­ic inci­dents of assault, harass­ment and van­dal­ism in 2021, a 34% increase over the pre­vi­ous year. It was the high­est num­ber since the New York City-based group began track­ing such inci­dents in 1979.”
  4. Red Flags for Faith-Based Lib­er­ty in Hong Kong (Susan Crab­tree, Real Clear Pol­i­tics): “Under Pres­i­dent Xi Jin­ping, all reli­gions have faced per­se­cu­tion.… For sev­er­al years, the Chris­t­ian church in Hong Kong was large­ly spared. But recent actions tak­en against Hong Kong’s Chris­t­ian church­es are chip­ping away at the reli­gious free­dom the city has enjoyed since the British estab­lished it as a colony in the ear­ly 1840s.”
  5. Tips From the Top: Do the Best Per­form­ers Real­ly Give the Best Advice? (David E. Levari, Daniel T. Gilbert & Tim­o­thy D. Wil­son, Psy­cho­log­i­cal Sci­ence): “Although advice from the best-per­form­ing advi­sors was no more ben­e­fi­cial than advice from oth­er advi­sors, par­tic­i­pants believed that it had been—and they believed this despite the fact that they were told noth­ing about their advi­sors’ per­for­mance. Why? The best per­form­ers did not give bet­ter advice, but they did give more of it, and par­tic­i­pants appar­ent­ly mis­took quan­ti­ty for qual­i­ty.” The researchers are at Har­vard and UVA. I did not read the arti­cle itself because I found the abstract instant­ly plau­si­ble.
  6. John Adams’ Fear Has Come to Pass (David French, The Dis­patch): “…the most polar­ized Amer­i­cans are dis­pro­por­tion­ate­ly white and col­lege-edu­cat­ed on the left and dis­pro­por­tion­ate­ly white and retired on the right. The peo­ple dis­pro­por­tion­ate­ly dri­ving polar­iza­tion in the Unit­ed States are not oppressed minori­ties, but rather some of the most pow­er­ful, most priv­i­leged, wealth­i­est peo­ple who’ve ever lived. They enjoy more free­dom and oppor­tu­ni­ty than vir­tu­al­ly any pri­or gen­er­a­tion of humans, all while liv­ing under the pro­tec­tive umbrel­la of the most pow­er­ful mil­i­tary in the his­to­ry of the plan­et.” Rec­om­mend­ed by a stu­dent.
  7. A Polit­i­cal Sci­en­tist on Ukraine (Mike Mazarr, Twit­ter): “Very struck by recent analy­sis + report­ing that high­lights a risk–highly uncer­tain but not so far wide­ly discussed–of a sig­nif­i­cant esca­la­tion of the Ukraine war in com­ing weeks. What it means, and what it implies for US pol­i­cy, are not at all clear.”

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 Real Prob­lem at Yale Is Not Free Speech (Natalia Dashan, Pal­la­di­um): “The cam­pus ‘free speech’ debate is just a side-effect. So are debates about ‘diver­si­ty’ and ‘inclu­sion.’ The real prob­lems run much deep­er. The real prob­lems start with Mar­cus and me, and the masks we wear for each oth­er…. In a world of masks and façades, it is hard to con­vey the truth. And this is how I end­ed up offer­ing a sand­wich to a man with hun­dreds of mil­lions in a for­eign bank account.” I liked this one a lot. First shared in vol­ume 215.

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 346

strong arti­cles this week — more rec­om­mend­ed 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, vol­ume 346, is the 5th Franel num­ber.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. Spir­i­tu­al­ly uplift­ing:
    • Fire Upon The Earth (Charles Cha­put, First Things): “Too many peo­ple who claim to be Chris­t­ian sim­ply don’t know Jesus Christ. They don’t real­ly believe in the gospel. They feel embar­rassed by their reli­gion and out of step with the times. They may keep their reli­gion for its com­fort val­ue, or adjust it to fit their doubts. It doesn’t reshape their lives, because it isn’t real. And because it isn’t real, it has no trans­form­ing effect on their behav­ior, no social force, and few pub­lic con­se­quences. Their faith, what­ev­er it once was, is now dead.” THIS IS STRAIGHT FIRE. The excerpt does not do it jus­tice.
    • The Man On The Mid­dle Cross (Alis­tair Begg, YouTube): one and a half min­utes.
    • It’s Fri­day… But Sun­day’s a Com­ing! (YouTube): three and a half min­utes
  2. Recalled Expe­ri­ences Sur­round­ing Death: More Than Hal­lu­ci­na­tions? (Neu­ro­science News): “The recalled expe­ri­ences sur­round­ing death are not con­sis­tent with hal­lu­ci­na­tions, illu­sions or psy­che­del­ic drug induced expe­ri­ences, accord­ing to sev­er­al pre­vi­ous­ly pub­lished stud­ies. Instead, they fol­low a spe­cif­ic nar­ra­tive arc involv­ing a per­cep­tion of: (a) sep­a­ra­tion from the body with a height­ened, vast sense of con­scious­ness and recog­ni­tion of death; (b) trav­el to a des­ti­na­tion; © a mean­ing­ful and pur­pose­ful review of life, involv­ing a crit­i­cal analy­sis of all actions, inten­tions and thoughts towards oth­ers; a per­cep­tion of (d) being in a place that feels like “home”, and (e) a return back to life.” The orig­i­nal research: https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nyas.14740
  3. Why the Past 10 Years of Amer­i­can Life Have Been Unique­ly Stu­pid (Jonathan Haidt, The Atlantic): “The sto­ry of Babel is the best metaphor I have found for what hap­pened to Amer­i­ca in the 2010s, and for the frac­tured coun­try we now inhab­it. Some­thing went ter­ri­bly wrong, very sud­den­ly. We are dis­ori­ent­ed, unable to speak the same lan­guage or rec­og­nize the same truth. We are cut off from one anoth­er and from the past.” This is quite good. Haidt is a social psy­chol­o­gist at NYU and is some­one who seems to be faith-adja­cent: he’s near Chris­tian­i­ty but not there yet.
  4. LGBTQ relat­ed
    • What I wish I’d known when I was 19 and had sex reas­sign­ment surgery (Corin­na Cohn, Wash­ing­ton Post): “Surgery unshack­led me from my body’s urges, but the destruc­tion of my gonads intro­duced a dif­fer­ent type of bondage. From the day of my surgery, I became a med­ical patient and will remain one for the rest of my life.” I am impressed that the Wash­ing­ton Post pub­lished this op-ed.
    • How to Make Sense of the New L.G.B.T.Q. Cul­ture War (Ross Douthat, New York Times): “If con­ser­v­a­tives had pre­dict­ed just before Oberge­fell v. Hodges that soon a fifth of young adults would iden­ti­fy as L.G.B.T.Q., promi­nent voic­es would deploy terms like ‘preg­nant per­son’ and ‘men­stru­a­tor’ in place of ‘woman,’ and natal males would be win­ning women’s track and swim­ming com­pe­ti­tions, they would have been treat­ed as hys­ter­ics.” This is a strong essay. High­ly rec­om­mend­ed and worth using up one of your pay­wall access­es.
    • Vic­to­ry: Shawnee State agrees pro­fes­sors can’t be forced to speak con­trary to their beliefs (Alliance Defend­ing Free­dom): “As part of the set­tle­ment, the uni­ver­si­ty has agreed that Meri­wether has the right to choose when to use, or avoid using, titles or pro­nouns when refer­ring to or address­ing stu­dents. Sig­nif­i­cant­ly, the uni­ver­si­ty agreed Meri­wether will nev­er be man­dat­ed to use pro­nouns, includ­ing if a stu­dent requests pro­nouns that con­flict with his or her bio­log­i­cal sex.” In addi­tion, “the uni­ver­si­ty agreed to pay $400,000 in dam­ages and Meriwether’s attor­neys’ fees.”
  5. Pan­dem­ic relat­ed
    • The Accu­ra­cy of Author­i­ties (Robin Han­son, blog): “The best esti­mates of a max­i­mal­ly accu­rate source would be very fre­quent­ly updat­ed and fol­low a ran­dom walk, which implies a large amount of back­track­ing. And author­i­ta­tive sources like WHO are often said to be our most accu­rate sources. Even so, such sources do not tend to act this way. They instead update their esti­mates rarely, and are espe­cial­ly reluc­tant to issue esti­mates that seem to back­track. Why?” There is sol­id wis­dom in this post.
    • Faith, Sci­ence, and Fran­cis Collins (Dhruv Khullar, New York­er): “In May, 2021, after help­ing to lead the fed­er­al pan­dem­ic response for more than a year, dur­ing which he woke up most morn­ings at four-thir­ty, Collins escaped for a week­end to a rent­ed barn in Loudoun Coun­ty, Vir­ginia. He brought his gui­tar and a Bible that he has had for decades; hors­es and goats kept him com­pa­ny. Collins gazed out at the blue sky and rolling hills. He wrote, prayed, and ulti­mate­ly decid­ed to leave his post as the direc­tor of the N.I.H. Collins told me that he prays not to ask God to change his cir­cum­stances, but to ask God what he him­self should do.”
    • A Warn­ing From Shang­hai (Jay Bat­tacharya, Bari Weis­s’s Sub­stack): “Yet the soul search­ing [of the attack on me and oth­er researchers] should have caused among pub­lic health offi­cials has large­ly failed to occur. Instead, the les­son seems to be: Dis­sent at your own risk. I do not prac­tice medicine—I am a pro­fes­sor spe­cial­iz­ing in epi­demi­ol­o­gy and health pol­i­cy at Stan­ford Med­ical School. But many friends who do prac­tice have told me how they have cen­sored their thoughts about Covid lock­downs, vac­cines, and rec­om­mend­ed treat­ment to avoid the mob.”
  6. The Law that Banned Every­thing (Richard Hana­nia, Sub­stack): “If every­thing is poten­tial­ly ille­gal, and gov­ern­ment does not have the resources to go after every­thing, then the gov­ern­ment basi­cal­ly has arbi­trary pow­er to do what­ev­er it wants under civ­il rights law.” This was an absolute­ly fas­ci­nat­ing inter­view. The inter­vie­wee is a law pro­fes­sor at the Uni­ver­si­ty of San Diego.
  7. A primer on the Stan­ford bud­get (Tim Macken­zie, Stan­ford Dai­ly) “… this year’s oper­at­ing bud­get says ‘the buffers serve as a finan­cial reserve in the event of an earth­quake or oth­er dis­as­ter.’ In oth­er words, Stan­ford has near­ly $4 bil­lion in a rainy-day fund. In the 2019–2020 bud­get, the last pre-COVID bud­get, Tier I and Tier II Buffers stood at $1.4 bil­lion and $1.0 bil­lion, respec­tive­ly. The buffers actu­al­ly grew by more than a bil­lion dol­lars dur­ing the ongo­ing pan­dem­ic. Mean­while, hun­dreds of work­ers were laid off and sub­con­tract­ed work­ers went months with­out promised pay. Appar­ent­ly, a glob­al pan­dem­ic does not reach the thresh­old of ‘earth­quake or oth­er dis­as­ter’ required to uti­lize finan­cial reserves to resist changes in uni­ver­si­ty oper­a­tions when chal­lenged with mar­ket uncer­tain­ty.” Rec­om­mend­ed by a stu­dent.

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 For the clas­sic selec­tion next week: Against Against Bil­lion­aire Phil­an­thropy (Scott Alexan­der, Slate Star Codex): “I wor­ry the move­ment against bil­lion­aire char­i­ty is on track to dam­age char­i­ty a whole lot more than it dam­ages bil­lion­aires.” This is a very inter­est­ing essay, and he has a follow-up, High­lights From The Com­ments on Bil­lion­aire Phil­an­thropy, which thought­ful­ly responds to crit­i­cisms. High­ly rec­om­mend­ed. First shared in vol­ume 213.

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 339

some of these links are quite spicy — con­sume with care

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 339, which is 3 · 113. I like num­bers with only two fac­tors (tech­ni­cal­ly four, but you know what I mean — two inter­est­ing fac­tors). They’re the sil­ver medal­ists of the prime olympics. They almost made it, but no.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. Wom­en’s Tears Win in the Mar­ket­place of Ideas (Richard Hana­nia, Sub­stack): “…the ways in which pub­lic debate works when we take steps to make the most emo­tion­al and aggres­sive women com­fort­able have been over­looked. Things that we talk about as involv­ing ‘young peo­ple,’ ‘col­lege stu­dents,’ and ‘lib­er­als’ are often gen­dered issues.” Long, provoca­tive, and worth your time.
  2. The Cana­di­an truck­ers:
    • Real­i­ty Honks Back (NS Lyons, Sub­stack): “For our pur­pos­es here, let’s call these two class­es the Phys­i­cals and the Vir­tu­als, respec­tive­ly.… That Trudeau’s gov­ern­ment would choose to jet­ti­son any remain­ing illu­sion of Cana­da still being a lib­er­al democ­ra­cy just to harm their polit­i­cal class ene­mies isn’t too sur­pris­ing. It’s their method of doing so that is par­tic­u­lar­ly strik­ing: con­trol over dig­i­tal finan­cial assets is pret­ty much the ulti­mate lever­age now avail­able to the Vir­tu­als. We should expect more use of this tool around the world any­where the Phys­i­cals con­tin­ue to revolt against their mas­ters. And here the Vir­tu­als have a sig­nif­i­cant advan­tage because they are free to use the max­i­mum lev­el of coer­cive force avail­able in their nat­ur­al domain, while the Phys­i­cals can­not – because, in the phys­i­cal world, that would mean vio­lence, which is some­thing the pro­tes­tors have right­ly for­sworn.”
      • Full of insight. The Vir­tu­al vs Phys­i­cal fram­ing is get­ting at some­thing I haven’t seen dis­cussed much else­where.
    • The plau­si­ble dystopia of a social cred­it sys­tem (Damon Link­er, The Week): “For a recent and espe­cial­ly vivid exam­ple from a neigh­bor­ing democ­ra­cy, this week’s dec­la­ra­tion of a nation­al emer­gency in Cana­da has empow­ered banks to freeze and sus­pend the accounts of ‘Free­dom Con­voy’ pro­test­ers with­out a court order and while enjoy­ing pro­tec­tion from civ­il lia­bil­i­ty. That is pre­cise­ly the kind of thing one would expect to see become nor­mal­ized with the impo­si­tion of a social cred­it sys­tem. Add in facial recog­ni­tion soft­ware that can iden­ti­fy indi­vid­u­als attend­ing ‘dan­ger­ous’ protests and oth­er pub­lic events and we’re left with a vision of the near-term future that can look pret­ty dystopi­an.”
  3. Lots of Stud­ies Are Bad (Emi­ly Oster, Sub­stack): “My point isn’t that this paper is wrong in its con­clu­sions, just that it’s large­ly unin­for­ma­tive. The authors begin with an inter­est­ing graph show­ing a lim­it­ed rela­tion­ship between the strin­gency of COVID restric­tions and mor­tal­i­ty. That deserved more study, but this paper isn’t help­ing us under­stand it much.”
    • Emi­ly Oster, an econ­o­mist at Brown, is not impressed with the Johns Hop­kins study I shared ear­li­er (and offers a sim­i­lar cri­tique of a pro-mask study).
  4. No, Amer­i­ca is not on the brink of a civ­il war (Musa al-Ghar­bi, The Guardian): “Of course, a far more obvi­ous and empir­i­cal­ly plau­si­ble expla­na­tion is that respon­dents knew per­fect­ly well what the cor­rect answer was. How­ev­er, they also had a sense of how that answer would be used in the media (‘Even Trump’s sup­port­ers don’t believe his non­sense!’), so they sim­ply declined to give poll­sters the response they seemed to be look­ing for. As a mat­ter of fact, respon­dents reg­u­lar­ly troll researchers in polling and sur­veys – espe­cial­ly when they are asked whether or not they sub­scribe to absurd or fringe beliefs, such as birtherism (a con­spir­a­cy that held that Barack Oba­ma was born out­side of the US and was legal­ly inel­i­gi­ble to serve as pres­i­dent of the Unit­ed States).”
    • The author is a soci­ol­o­gist at Colum­bia. The arti­cle is a few weeks old but quite good and not par­tic­u­lar­ly time-sen­si­tive.
  5. The Seeds of Polit­i­cal Vio­lence Are Being Sown in Church (David French, The Dis­patch): “Pen­te­costal Chris­tian­i­ty, despite its immense size, is about as far from elite Amer­i­can cul­ture as Mer­cury is from Mars. And this means it’s quite dis­tant from elite Evan­gel­i­cal cul­ture as well. Right-wing blue-check the­olo­gians and pas­tors who speak dis­dain­ful­ly of warn­ings about Chris­t­ian nation­al­ism because it’s not some­thing they see in their church­es nev­er dark­en the door of a Pen­te­costal church.” I think French gets it a lit­tle wrong here (there is an impor­tant dis­tinc­tion between Pen­te­costal and charis­mat­ic church­es, and even more sig­nif­i­cant­ly between denom­i­na­tion­al and non­de­nom­i­na­tion­al ones). Still, French used to be an Assem­blies of God youth pas­tor(!) and so he is not speak­ing of some­thing he does­n’t under­stand. Rec­om­mend­ed.
  6. Why Amer­i­ca Has So Few Doc­tors (Derek Thomp­son, The Atlantic): “Imag­ine you were plan­ning a con­spir­a­cy to lim­it the num­ber of doc­tors in Amer­i­ca. Cer­tain­ly, you’d make sure to have a cost­ly, lengthy cre­den­tial­ing sys­tem. You would also tell politi­cians that Amer­i­ca has too many doc­tors already. That way, you could pur­pose­ful­ly con­strain the num­ber of med­ical-school stu­dents. You might freeze or slash fund­ing for res­i­den­cies and med­ical schol­ar­ships. You’d fight pro­pos­als to allow nurs­es to do the work of physi­cians. And because none of this would stop for­eign-trained doc­tors from slip­ping into the coun­try and com­mit­ting the crime of help­ing sick peo­ple get bet­ter, you’d throw in some rules that made it oner­ous for immi­grant doc­tors, espe­cial­ly from neigh­bor­ing coun­tries Mex­i­co and Cana­da, to do their job.” The orig­i­nal title was bet­ter: Why Does the US Make it so Hard to be a Doc­tor?
  7. What do stu­dents’ beliefs about God have to do with grades and going to col­lege? (Ilana Hor­witz, The Con­ver­sa­tion): “In inter­views, reli­gious teens over and over men­tion life goals of par­ent­hood, altru­ism and serv­ing God – pri­or­i­ties that I argue make them less intent on attend­ing as high­ly selec­tive a col­lege as they could. This aligns with pre­vi­ous research show­ing that con­ser­v­a­tive Protes­tant women attend col­leges that less selec­tive than oth­er women do because they do not tend to view college’s main pur­pose as career advance­ment.”
    • The author is a pro­fes­sor of Jew­ish stud­ies at Tulane Uni­ver­si­ty. Over­all inter­est­ing, although she does­n’t com­ment on two fac­tors which I think are quite sig­nif­i­cant: reli­gious stu­dents often view selec­tive col­leges as inim­i­cal to faith, and stu­dents are often torn between pres­ti­gious col­leges and less selec­tive reli­gious col­leges (I have per­son­al­ly spo­ken to sev­er­al Stan­ford stu­dents who were torn between Stan­ford and Wheaton).
    • Relat­ed? Mar­riage Made Me Let Go of My Dreams. Good. (Esau McCaul­ley, New York Times): “Many believe that the pur­pose of mar­riage is self-actu­al­iza­tion. We find the part­ner who will come along­side us and help us become what we have always dreamed we would be. Con­verse­ly, we may think that a poten­tial spouse who would get in the way of our dreams is the wrong per­son for us. What if mar­riage is meant to be some­thing else?” This is very good. High­ly rec­om­mend­ed.

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 Arti­fi­cial Intel­li­gence and Mag­i­cal Think­ing (Ed Fes­er, per­son­al blog): “Build­ing a com­put­er is pre­cise­ly anal­o­gous to putting togeth­er a bit of mag­i­cal sleight of hand. It is a clever exer­cise in sim­u­la­tion, noth­ing more. And the con­vinc­ing­ness of the sim­u­la­tion is as com­plete­ly irrel­e­vant in the one case as it is in the oth­er. Say­ing ‘Gee, AI pro­grams can do such amaz­ing things. Maybe it real­ly is intel­li­gence!’ is like say­ing ‘Gee, Penn and Teller do such amaz­ing things. Maybe it real­ly is mag­ic!’” Fes­er is one of my favorite philoso­phers. First shared in vol­ume 197. I remem­ber one CS grad stu­dent strong­ly dis­lik­ing this arti­cle when I first shared. I share it again regard­less

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 337

Some wild sto­ries about Stan­ford in this one.

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 337, a prime num­ber. In fact, the dig­its are prime even when rearranged (the oth­er per­mu­ta­tions of these dig­its being 373 and 733).

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. Why I do not expect a civ­il war in Amer­i­ca (and what does wor­ry me) (Chris Blattman, blog): “Most ene­mies pre­fer to loathe one anoth­er in peace. War is real­ly cost­ly. It kills, destroys economies, and weak­ens your coun­try to ene­mies. As a result, all sides have huge incen­tives to avoid vio­lence. That’s why most rivals don’t fight. For every thou­sand eth­nic groups, gangs, reli­gious sects, polit­i­cal fac­tions or nations who hate one anoth­er, maybe one in a thou­sand end up in pro­longed vio­lence. Because it just doesn’t make sense.”
    • The author is an econ­o­mist and polit­i­cal sci­en­tist at U Chica­go. I like this arti­cle in part because he spends time talk­ing about the absurd “democ­ra­cy rat­ings” polit­i­cal sci­en­tists have been down­grad­ing Amer­i­ca in over the last few years.
  2. Pan­dem­ic-relat­ed news:
    • PDF: A Lit­er­a­ture Review and Meta-Analy­sis of the Effects of Lock­downs on COVID-19 Mor­tal­i­ty (Jonas Her­by, Lars Jonung, and Steve H. Han­ke, Stud­ies in Applied Eco­nom­ics): “[The stud­ies] were sep­a­rat­ed into three groups: lock­down strin­gency index stud­ies, shel­ter-in-place­order (SIPO) stud­ies, and spe­cif­ic NPI stud­ies. An analy­sis of each of these three groups sup­port the con­clu­sion that lock­downs have had lit­tle to no effect on COVID-19 mor­tal­i­ty. More specif­i­cal­ly, strin­gency index stud­ies find that lock­downs in Europe and the Unit­ed States only reduced COVID-19 mor­tal­i­ty by 0.2% on aver­age. SIPOs were also inef­fec­tive, only reduc­ing COVID-19 mor­tal­i­ty by 2.9% on aver­age. Spe­cif­ic NPI stud­ies also find no broad-based evi­dence of notice­able effects on COVID-19 mor­tal­i­ty. While this meta-analy­sis con­cludes that lock­downs have had lit­tle to no pub­lic health effects, they have imposed enor­mous eco­nom­ic and social costs where they have been adopt­ed. In con­se­quence, lock­down poli­cies are ill-found­ed and should be reject­ed as a pan­dem­ic pol­i­cy instru­ment.”
      • Lock­downs only achieved a .2% reduc­tion in deaths? That’s one in five hun­dred. Wow. Some of the oth­er stuff our soci­ety did was jus­ti­fied, but clear­ly lock­downs aren’t a tool we should use in the future.
    • Race-Based Rationing Is Real—And Dan­ger­ous (Sha­di Hamid, The Atlantic): “The rationing rules in New York and else­where are not the prod­uct of any­thing resem­bling con­ven­tion­al polit­i­cal per­sua­sion. No par­ty would support—certainly not openly—the essen­tial­iza­tion and instru­men­tal­iza­tion of race in med­i­cine. Few are will­ing to defend poli­cies such as these on the mer­its, because what exact­ly would they say? Telling­ly, these con­tro­ver­sies have received lim­it­ed cov­er­age from main­stream out­lets.” Rec­om­mend­ed by a stu­dent.
    • COVID Affects Your Mem­o­ry (Alex Gutentag, Tablet): “After spend­ing four years check­ing every per­ceived author­i­tar­i­an impulse from Don­ald Trump, the media sud­den­ly called for strict enforce­ment of gov­ern­ment decrees, denounced the non­com­pli­ant, pun­ished dis­senters, and advo­cat­ed for Big Tech clam­p­downs on speech.… With the 2022 midterms in sight, the nar­ra­tive is sim­ply shift­ing with­out apol­o­gy, and many of the argu­ments once made by ‘covid­iots’ are now being backed by Antho­ny Fau­ci, CDC Direc­tor Rochelle Walen­sky, and the famil­iar cast of jour­nal­ists and experts.”
  3. Two reveal­ing arti­cles about Stan­ford:
    • “Racist, Trig­ger­ing, Dis­re­spect­ful” — Stan­ford RA slams unmasked white stu­dents (Stan­ford Review): “Late Sun­day night, a Stan­ford stu­dent RA in the EVGR dor­mi­to­ry emailed the building’s 2,400 res­i­dents to warn against a ‘gross inequity’ that risked stu­dents ‘being killed or maimed for a life­time.’ The dan­ger in ques­tion? Mask­less stu­dents— espe­cial­ly white ones.”
    • The teach­ers of White Plaza (Valerie Trapp, Stan­ford Dai­ly): “He tried to respond and was cut off. ‘You’re a white guy,’ Wait­es said. ‘I can inter­rupt you.’ ‘And you’re a white woman.’ ‘Well, you’re cop­ping out of the fact I’m say­ing that you’re racist, and you’re not say­ing you’re not a racist.’ ”
    • This isn’t all of cam­pus life, but it’s not none of cam­pus life.
  4. Some insights into acad­e­mia:
    • How the job mar­ket works at top schools (Tyler Cowen, Mar­gin­al Rev­o­lu­tion): “At least pre-Covid, most of the fac­ul­ty would get togeth­er and rate the grad­u­ate stu­dents (I am not sure how it has oper­at­ed for the last two years, though I sus­pect the same, only over Zoom). Some but not all of the stu­dents would be des­ig­nat­ed as ‘should work at a top school.’ If you were not so rat­ed, your chance of being hired at a top school was slim. Oth­er schools, of course, would know not to pur­sue the top can­di­dates, and would shoot low­er, though some fool­hardy places might try to lure them any­way. But basi­cal­ly if you were hir­ing at a high lev­el, you would call the place­ment offi­cer at a top school, and they would tier the can­di­dates, based on where you were call­ing from, and rec­om­mend accord­ing­ly.”
    • Intel­lec­tu­al Free­dom in Medieval Uni­ver­si­ties (James Han­k­ins, First Things): “One rea­son [medieval uni­ver­si­ties flour­ished] is the lack of pro­fes­sion­al admin­is­tra­tors, a fea­ture of uni­ver­si­ties that last­ed into mod­ern times. (Har­vard University—O the bliss of it!—as late as 1850 had only a sin­gle full-time admin­is­tra­tor, the pres­i­dent, helped by a jan­i­tor, a cook, and two ush­ers.) It is a gen­er­al prin­ci­ple of suc­cess­ful insti­tu­tions that the peo­ple who run them are the ones most com­mit­ted to their mis­sions and most respon­si­ble for their suc­cess. A pro­fes­sion­al admin­is­tra­tive class, by con­trast, spends much of its time evad­ing respon­si­bil­i­ty for fail­ure and tak­ing cred­it for oth­er people’s achieve­ments.” The author is a his­to­ry pro­fes­sor at Har­vard.
    • Going South: Life at the World’s Most Pro­gres­sive Uni­ver­si­ty (David Benatar, Quil­lette): “Many uni­ver­si­ties have a problem—on this point there seems to be wide­spread agree­ment. The nature of that prob­lem, how­ev­er, remains bit­ter­ly con­test­ed. Lib­er­als and con­ser­v­a­tives wor­ry that high­er edu­ca­tion has suc­cumbed to regres­sive rad­i­cal­ism on mat­ters relat­ed to race and gen­der. Those who self-iden­ti­fy as pro­gres­sives and social jus­tice activists, on the oth­er hand, com­plain that uni­ver­si­ties are still gov­erned by embed­ded struc­tures of oppres­sion, and that lib­er­als and con­ser­v­a­tives have suc­cumbed to a moral pan­ic in response to rea­son­able calls for reform.” The author is a pro­fes­sor of phi­los­o­phy at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Cape Town.
  5. Men in the church:
    • Part one: Is Chris­tian­i­ty doing more harm than good to Amer­i­can men? (Antho­ny Bradley, Acton): “It’s often thought that con­trol of women, and espe­cial­ly women’s bod­ies, has been the obses­sion of Chris­t­ian cler­gy down through the ages, but actu­al­ly it has been the con­trol of men and their bod­ies that has just as often char­ac­ter­ized Christianity’s ori­en­ta­tion. How­ev­er, because that con­trol has his­tor­i­cal­ly been mis­man­aged, rang­ing from fem­i­niza­tion, to priests using the con­fes­sion­al to con­trol hus­bands, to cler­gy falling prey to mar­ry­ing church and pol­i­tics, to cler­gy sex-abuse scan­dals, to recent sto­ries of evan­gel­i­cal pas­tors abus­ing their pow­er, men have become increas­ing­ly alien­at­ed from the very insti­tu­tion cre­at­ed to form them to be of ben­e­fit to oth­ers.” The author is a pro­fes­sor of Reli­gious Stud­ies at The King’s Col­lege in NYC. 
    • Part two: Sav­ing men requires the lead­er­ship of lay­men (Antho­ny Bradley, The Acton Insti­tute): “Amer­i­can boys are often taught that mar­riage or work will be a cure for their lone­li­ness and alien­ation, but many men find out the hard way that one can be mar­ried, gain­ful­ly employed, and still incred­i­bly lone­ly. Men need local, lay-led con­fra­ter­ni­ties that res­onate with their deep­est long­ings and their desire for com­mu­nion with their fel­lows, formed by local com­mon inter­ests.”
  6. How Hous­es of Wor­ship Became Hotbeds of Graft (Avi­tal Chizhik-Gold­schmidt, The New Repub­lic): “In extreme cas­es, finan­cial opac­i­ty in hous­es of wor­ship can even become a secu­ri­ty risk: It was that exact lack of trans­paren­cy that may have cost human life at Goldstein’s syn­a­gogue in Poway. Though the syn­a­gogue had received $150,000 from the gov­ern­ment because it “believed that it was at risk of an anti-Semit­ic attack on its con­gre­gants,” accord­ing to one of the con­gre­gants’ sub­se­quent suits—court doc­u­ments show that on the day of the attack, the building’s doors were unlocked and no guards, gates, or oth­er secu­ri­ty mea­sures were in place. Instead of pro­vid­ing a nec­es­sary guard at the front of the syn­a­gogue, funds had alleged­ly been divert­ed else­where; the plain­tiffs argue that this mis­take may have cost the life of Lori Gilbert-Kaye, who was killed in the shoot­ing.”
  7. Con­cern­ing Fran­cis Collins:
    • How The Fed­er­al Gov­ern­ment Used Evan­gel­i­cal Lead­ers To Spread COVID Pro­pa­gan­da To Church­es (Megan Basham, The Dai­ly Wire): “Oth­er than his procla­ma­tions that he is, him­self, a believ­er, the NIH direc­tor espous­es near­ly no pub­lic posi­tions that would mark him out as any dif­fer­ent from any extreme Left-wing bureau­crat. He has not only defend­ed exper­i­men­ta­tion on fetus­es obtained by abor­tion, he has also direct­ed record-lev­el spend­ing toward it. Among the pri­or­i­ties the NIH has fund­ed under Collins — a Uni­ver­si­ty of Pitts­burgh exper­i­ment that involved graft­ing infant scalps onto lab rats, as well as projects that relied on the har­vest­ed organs of abort­ed, full-term babies. Some doc­tors have even charged Collins with giv­ing mon­ey to research that required extract­ing kid­neys, ureters, and blad­ders from liv­ing infants.”
    • Evan­gel­i­cals: Who Are The Good & The Bad? (Rod Dreher, The Amer­i­can Con­ser­v­a­tive): “What sticks in my craw is the seem­ing­ly unex­am­ined assump­tion that if you don’t land where edu­cat­ed mid­dle class elites do on any or all of these ques­tions, that you must in some sense be a threat to the integri­ty of the Church. Per­haps edu­cat­ed mid­dle class elite opin­ion is the real threat, you know?” A long arti­cle sum­ma­riz­ing and inter­act­ing with two oth­er arti­cles.
    • I’m going to regret writ­ing this (Erick Erik­son, Sub­stack): “..the NIH exec­u­tive tells me it is impor­tant to under­stand that Collins does not approve and sanc­tion all research and fund­ing and of the fund­ing Collins has direct­ly over­seen and approved, only a lit­tle would be con­tro­ver­sial. The NIH is com­plex and while Collins guides the whole, he does not over­see or approve the entire­ty of the budget.“A sane take (and one I pri­vate­ly expressed ear­li­er today with­out hav­ing seen this arti­cle).
    • Dis­claimer: I loose­ly know Fran­cis Collins and respect him. I do wish he had done a few things dif­fer­ent­ly, but I am sure that if I had his job he would wish I had done a LOT of things dif­fer­ent­ly and he would be right.

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 An MIT Pro­fes­sor Meets the Author of All Knowl­edge (Ros­alind Picard, Chris­tian­i­ty Today): “I once thought I was too smart to believe in God. Now I know I was an arro­gant fool who snubbed the great­est Mind in the cosmos—the Author of all sci­ence, math­e­mat­ics, art, and every­thing else there is to know. Today I walk humbly, hav­ing received the most unde­served grace. I walk with joy, along­side the most amaz­ing Com­pan­ion any­one could ask for, filled with desire to keep learn­ing and explor­ing.” First shared in vol­ume 194.

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.