Category: Links

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 338

more eclec­tic 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 is the 338th install­ment. 338, I am told, is the small­est num­ber for which both the num­ber of divi­sors and the sum of its prime fac­tors is a per­fect num­ber. An odd hon­or, but one I am pleased to acknowl­edge.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. Romance:
    • Reverse friend zone: many roman­tic rela­tion­ships start off just as friends. In fact, most peo­ple pre­fer it this way (Tibi Puiu, ZME Sci­ence): “When par­tic­i­pants were asked about their orig­i­nal inten­tions for ini­ti­at­ing the friend­ship that went on to evolve roman­ti­cal­ly, only 30% said they were sex­u­al­ly attract­ed to the part­ner from the very begin­ning. In 70% of cas­es, nei­ther of the two par­ties in the rela­tion­ship orig­i­nal­ly had feel­ings, with attrac­tion blos­som­ing at a lat­er time.”
    • Too Risky to Wed in Your 20s? Not if You Avoid Cohab­it­ing First (Brad Wilcox and Lyman Stone, Wall Street Jour­nal): “In ana­lyz­ing reports of mar­riage and divorce from more than 50,000 women in the U.S. government’s Nation­al Sur­vey of Fam­i­ly Growth (NFSG), we found that there is a group of women for whom mar­riage before 30 is not risky: women who mar­ried direct­ly, with­out ever cohab­it­ing pri­or to mar­riage. In fact, women who mar­ried between 22 and 30, with­out first liv­ing togeth­er, had some of the low­est rates of divorce in the NSFG.”#justsaying
  2. Stephen Col­bert Explains The Rela­tion­ship Between His Com­e­dy and His Faith (Twit­ter): I think I would real­ly like Stephen Col­bert if I met him in per­son.
  3. Stan­ford relat­ed:
    • Are semes­ters or quar­ters bet­ter? (Tyler Cowen, Mar­gin­al Rev­o­lu­tion): “In fact I think the quar­ter sys­tem doesn’t go far enough. I think we should have many more one- and two-week class­es, or five-week class­es, as well. Under­stand­ably that is more dif­fi­cult to man­age oper­a­tional­ly, but I don’t see any rea­son why it should be impossible. Com­pa­nies solve more com­plex sched­ul­ing prob­lems than that all the time. If I think of GMU, either the under­grad­u­ate majors, or the grad­u­ate stu­dents, should in my opin­ion have had some class­room time with almost every sin­gle instructor. So much of life and pro­duc­tiv­i­ty is about match­ing!”
    • I went to every library on cam­pus so you don’t have to (Annie Reller, Stan­ford Dai­ly): “Below is my rank­ing of the libraries on cam­pus. Please keep in mind that I have spe­cif­ic cri­te­ria when going to libraries: com­fy chairs, ambiance and light­ing. I am a human­i­ties major, so desks are less nec­es­sary as I do most of my work on my lap­top.”
  4. Why Isn’t There a Repli­ca­tion Cri­sis in Math? (Jay Daigle, blog): “Many papers have errors, yes—but our major results gen­er­al­ly hold up, even when the inter­me­di­ate steps are wrong! Our errors can usu­al­ly be fixed with­out real­ly chang­ing our con­clu­sions.… But isn’t it…weird…that our results hold up when our meth­ods don’t? How does that even work? We get away with it becuase we can be right for the wrong rea­son­s—we most­ly only try to prove things that are basi­cal­ly true.” Empha­sis in orig­i­nal. The author is a math pro­fes­sor at George Wash­ing­ton Uni­ver­si­ty.
  5. Hack­ers:
    • North Korea Hacked Him. So He Took Down Its Inter­net (Andy Green­berg, Wired): “But respon­si­bil­i­ty for North Kore­a’s ongo­ing inter­net out­ages does­n’t lie with US Cyber Com­mand or any oth­er state-spon­sored hack­ing agency. In fact, it was the work of one Amer­i­can man in a T‑shirt, paja­ma pants, and slip­pers, sit­ting in his liv­ing room night after night, watch­ing Alien movies and eat­ing spicy corn snacks—and peri­od­i­cal­ly walk­ing over to his home office to check on the progress of the pro­grams he was run­ning to dis­rupt the inter­net of an entire coun­try.” What an absolute leg­end.
    • How A Lone Hack­er Shred­ded the Myth of Crowd­sourc­ing (Mark Har­ris, Medi­um): “Myself and oth­ers in the social sci­ences com­mu­ni­ty tend to think of such mas­sive acts of sab­o­tage as anom­alies, but are they?” won­dered Cebri­an. To set­tle the ques­tion, Cebri­an ana­lyzed his (and oth­er) crowd­sourc­ing con­tests with the help of Vic­tor Nar­o­dit­skiy, a game the­o­ry expert at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Southamp­ton. The results shocked him. “The expect­ed out­come is for every­one to attack, regard­less of how dif­fi­cult an attack is,” says Cebri­an. “It is actu­al­ly ratio­nal for the crowd to be mali­cious, espe­cial­ly in a com­pe­ti­tion envi­ron­ment. And I can’t think of any engi­neer­ing or game the­o­ret­ic or eco­nom­ic incen­tive to stop it.” Rec­om­mend­ed by a stu­dent.
  6. Ukraine Gave Up a Giant Nuclear Arse­nal 30 Years Ago. Today There Are Regrets. (William J. Broad, New York Times): “We gave away the capa­bil­i­ty for nothing,” said Andriy Zahorod­niuk, a for­mer defense min­is­ter of Ukraine. Refer­ring to the secu­ri­ty assur­ances Ukraine won in exchange for its nuclear arms, he added: “Now, every time some­body offers us to sign a strip of paper, the response is, ‘Thank you very much. We already had one of those some time ago.’”
    • If Rus­sia does invade Ukraine, I think the biggest glob­al con­se­quence might be that nuclear pow­ers become even more com­mit­ted to main­tain­ing their arse­nals and non-nuclear pow­ers strive even hard­er to join the club.
  7. The Cana­di­an truck­ers:
    • Sym­pa­thet­ic: What the Truck­ers Want (Rupa Sub­ra­manya, Bari Weis­s’s Sub­stack): “It was iron­ic, she said that she could serve but couldn’t dine at the restau­rant where she worked.”
    • Con­cerned: Dis­patch from the Ottawa Front: Sloly is telling you all he’s in trou­ble. Who’s lis­ten­ing? (Matt Gur­ney, Sub­stack): “This is a com­pli­cat­ed protest and a com­pli­cat­ed event. It has lay­ers. Are there good, frus­trat­ed peo­ple just try­ing to be heard in the crowd? Yes. Are there bad peo­ple in the crowd, includ­ing some who’ve waved hate sym­bols and harassed or attacked oth­ers? Yes. Are there peo­ple tak­ing care­ful care of the roads, sweep­ing up trash and shov­el­ling ice and snow off the side­walk? Yes. Are there hard men milling about, keep­ing a wary eye on any­one who seems out of place? Yes. Is it a place where some peo­ple are hav­ing good-natured fun? Yes. Is it a place some oth­er peo­ple would right­ly be afraid to go? Yes. And so on. But it’s even more com­pli­cat­ed than it looks.”

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 Religion’s health effects should make doubt­ing parish­ioners recon­sid­er leav­ing (John Siniff and Tyler J. Van­der­Weele, USA Today): “Simply from a pub­lic health per­spec­tive, the con­tin­u­ing diminu­tion of reli­gious upbring­ing in Amer­i­ca would be bad for health. This is not pros­e­ly­tiz­ing; this is science.” The Har­vard epi­demi­ol­o­gy pro­fes­sor  last made an appear­ance here back in vol­ume 65. First shared in vol­ume 195.

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.

Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 336

I was quar­an­tined this week, so I had an extra-large pile of stuff to sift through. Enjoy these gems!

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

I’m a sim­ple man, and I appre­ci­ate that vol­ume 336 is com­prised of dig­its eas­i­ly put into an equa­tion: 3 + 3 = 6.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. This Inno­v­a­tive Chris­t­ian Home­less Shel­ter Is Ris­ing To Cal­i­for­ni­a’s Hous­ing Chal­lenge (Liza Van­den­boom Ash­ley, Reli­gion Unplugged): “…Orange Coun­ty Res­cue Mis­sion [is] an inno­v­a­tive Chris­t­ian home­less shel­ter based in Tustin with sev­er­al oth­er loca­tions. The Tustin cam­pus, known as the Vil­lage of Hope, runs with­out gov­ern­ment fund­ing or pri­vate debt and employs an orga­ni­za­tion­al and aes­thet­ic ethos that more close­ly resem­bles a col­lege cam­pus than a home­less shel­ter.” This is an uplift­ing read. Rec­om­mend­ed.
  2. Christ and cocaine: Rio’s gangs of God blend faith and vio­lence (Tom Phillips, The Guardian): “Drug lords, some reg­u­lar church­go­ers, have incor­po­rat­ed Chris­t­ian sym­bols into their ultra-vio­lent trade. Pack­ets of cocaine, hand­guns and uni­forms are embla­zoned with the Star of David – a ref­er­ence to the Pen­te­costal belief that the return of Jews to Israel rep­re­sents progress towards the sec­ond com­ing. Gang-com­mis­sioned graf­fi­ti offers spir­i­tu­al guid­ance and heav­en­ly praise.” Rec­om­mend­ed by an alum­nus. What a wild sto­ry! See­ing their blind spots, my main take­away is to won­der what my blind spots are.
  3. Noth­ing Sacred: These Apps Reserve The Right To Sell Your Prayers (Emi­ly Bak­er-White, Buz­zFeed): “It is com­mon for free apps to prof­it from shar­ing their user­s’ data and to be vague about exact­ly how and with whom they share it, but users feel like Pray.com’s data prac­tices are at odds with the deeply per­son­al nature of prayer itself. Jen­ny, a recent col­lege grad­u­ate who prayed about the infi­deli­ty of a roman­tic part­ner in the app, said ‘there is an expec­ta­tion of pri­va­cy’ among Chris­tians shar­ing prayers.”
    • From lat­er in the arti­cle: “At least one gov­ern­ment has tak­en an inter­est in prayer app data, too — the US mil­i­tary bought exten­sive loca­tion data mined from Mus­lim prayer apps back in 2020 for use in spe­cial forces oper­a­tions.”
  4. PDF: So Long, And No Thanks for the Exter­nal­i­ties: The Ratio­nal Rejec­tion of Secu­ri­ty Advice by Users (Cor­mac Her­ley, Microsoft): “For exam­ple, much of the advice con­cern­ing pass­words is out­dat­ed and does lit­tle to address actu­al treats, and ful­ly 100% of cer­tifi­cate error warn­ings appear to be false pos­i­tives. Fur­ther, if users spent even a minute a day read­ing URLs to avoid phish­ing, the cost (in terms of user time) would be two orders of mag­ni­tude greater than all phish­ing loss­es. Thus we find that most secu­ri­ty advice sim­ply offers a poor cost-ben­e­fit trade­off to users and is reject­ed.” Rec­om­mend­ed by a stu­dent.
  5. Super­hero Secret Iden­ti­ties Aren’t Pos­si­ble with Today’s Com­put­ing Tech­nolo­gies (Jason Hong, Com­mu­ni­ca­tions of the ACM): “Super­heroes have to wor­ry about hav­ing their iden­ti­ty being revealed, but the rest of us in the real world have to wor­ry about just how much infor­ma­tion about us is out there, how wide­ly avail­able many of these tech­nolo­gies are, and how both of these can be eas­i­ly abused—sometimes acci­den­tal­ly, some­times intentionally—by adver­tis­ers, gov­ern­ments, employ­ers, stalk­ers, crim­i­nals, and more.” I enjoyed this.
  6. On Russia/Ukraine:
    • US Blun­ders, Ukraine’s War (Rod Dreher, The Amer­i­can Con­ser­v­a­tive): “Putin or no Putin, no Russ­ian leader could allow Ukraine to join NATO, any more than any Amer­i­can leader could allow Mex­i­co to join a defen­sive alliance formed out of oppo­si­tion to Amer­i­can pow­er. Every Amer­i­can pres­i­dent since James Mon­roe has upheld the so-called Mon­roe Doc­trine, which claims the entire West­ern hemi­sphere as a zone of Amer­i­can influ­ence. By what crack­pot log­ic can we advance and defend that claim, but expect Rus­sia, anoth­er great pow­er, to acqui­esce to Ukraine, a bor­der state to Rus­sia, join­ing NATO?”
    • Rus­sia as the “Great Satan” in the Lib­er­al Imag­i­na­tion (Richard Hana­nia, Sub­stack): “…the US for­eign pol­i­cy estab­lish­ment believes that every coun­try in Europe should even­tu­al­ly be part of the EU and NATO, and none should be allowed to get close to Rus­sia or adopt a ‘non­de­mo­c­ra­t­ic’ form of gov­ern­ment, with “democracy” again being defined as mak­ing inter­nal deci­sions that reflect the pol­i­cy out­comes that State Depart­ment offi­cials wish a Demo­c­ra­t­ic pres­i­dent would imple­ment at home.”
    • Defend Cher­nobyl Dur­ing an Inva­sion? Why Both­er, Some Ukraini­ans Ask. (Andrew Kramer & Tyler Hicks, New York Times): “Mr. Prishepa said he would pre­fer that Ukraine set up the defen­sive lines fur­ther south, giv­ing the irra­di­at­ed zone over to whomev­er might want it. ‘It’s a waste­land,’ he said. ‘No crop will ever grow here.’ ” Rec­om­mend­ed by an alum­nus.
  7. Pan­dem­ic per­spec­tives:
    • I Had COVID. Am I Done Now? (Emi­ly Oster, Sub­stack): “I think part of what has made this tran­si­tion dif­fi­cult, even if we say we have accept­ed it, is the resid­ual fear of the unknown that has been hard to shake. It’s not unknown to as many of us as before. I spent the past two years tak­ing a mil­lion PCR and rapid tests, which were all neg­a­tive. When I final­ly got a pos­i­tive result last week, I felt a bit of loss and defeat but also a bit of release. Maybe it’s the same for others.“The author is an econ­o­mist at Brown Uni­ver­si­ty.
    • Why Are We Boost­ing Kids? (David Zweig, Bari Weis­s’s Sub­stack): “Mon­i­ca Gand­hi, a doc­tor and an infec­tious-dis­ease spe­cial­ist at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Cal­i­for­nia, San Fran­cis­co, was blunt in her assess­ment. ‘I am not giv­ing my 12 and 14-year-old boys boost­ers,’ she told me. Dr. Gand­hi is not the only expert to pub­licly state an inten­tion to not com­ply with the CDC’s rec­om­men­da­tion. Dr. Paul Offit is the direc­tor of the Vac­cine Edu­ca­tion Cen­ter at Children’s Hos­pi­tal of Philadel­phia, a mem­ber of the FDA’s vac­cine advi­so­ry com­mit­tee, and is con­sid­ered one the country’s top author­i­ties on pedi­atric vac­cine pol­i­cy. He recent­ly said that get­ting boost­ed would not be worth the risk for the aver­age healthy 17-year-old boy, and he advised his son, who is in his 20s, not to get a third dose.”
    • Soci­ety has a trust prob­lem. More cen­sor­ship will only make it worse. (Hamish McKen­zie, Chris Best & Jairaj, Sub­stack): “…as we face grow­ing pres­sure to cen­sor con­tent pub­lished on Sub­stack that to some seems dubi­ous or objec­tion­able, our answer remains the same: we make deci­sions based on prin­ci­ples not PR, we will defend free expres­sion, and we will stick to our hands-off approach to con­tent mod­er­a­tion. While we have con­tent guide­lines that allow us to pro­tect the plat­form at the extremes, we will always view cen­sor­ship as a last resort, because we believe open dis­course is bet­ter for writ­ers and bet­ter for soci­ety.” Bra­vo to Sub­stack.
    • The Fol­ly of Pan­dem­ic Cen­sor­ship (Matt Taib­bi, Sub­stack): “Cen­sors have a fan­ta­sy that if they get rid of all the Beren­sons and Mer­co­las and Mal­ones, and rein in peo­ple like Joe Rogan, that all the hold­outs will sud­den­ly rush to get vac­ci­nat­ed. The oppo­site is true. If you wipe out crit­ics, peo­ple will imme­di­ate­ly default to high­er lev­els of sus­pi­cion. They will now be sure there’s some­thing wrong with the vac­cine. If you want to con­vince audi­ences, you have to allow every­one to talk, even the ones you dis­agree with. You have to make a bet­ter case.” Parts of this are straight fire.
    • How an Anony­mous Report­ing Sys­tem Made Yale a COVID ‘Surveillance State’ (Aaron Sibar­i­um, Wash­ing­ton Free Bea­con): “At Yale, those lost social con­nec­tions have killed more peo­ple than COVID-19. In Sep­tem­ber 2020, a Yale fresh­man told the Yale Dai­ly News that the iso­la­tion of the pan­dem­ic had made her wor­ried about her men­tal health. In March 2021, she com­mit­ted sui­cide in her dorm. Since the begin­ning of the pan­dem­ic, there have been no report­ed COVID deaths among Yale’s stu­dents, fac­ul­ty, or staff.” The arti­cle describes a few absolute­ly bonkers encoun­ters.
    • The NYT’s polar­iz­ing pan­dem­ic pun­dit (Joanne Kenen, Politi­co): “Oth­er pub­lic health experts Night­ly­in­ter­viewed — some of whom are sources for New York Times health jour­nal­ists or have media gigs of their own — didn’t want to be quot­ed, or said they were too busy tak­ing care of patients, ciao. One well-known research sci­en­tist, who is part of this crit­i­cal con­ver­sa­tion but who admires Leon­hardt over­all, wouldn’t even praise him on the record.”

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 If Lib­er­als Won’t Enforce Bor­ders, Fas­cists Will (David Frum, The Atlantic): “Demagogues don’t rise by talk­ing about irrel­e­vant issues. Dem­a­gogues rise by talk­ing about issues that mat­ter to peo­ple, and that more con­ven­tion­al lead­ers appear unwill­ing or unable to address: unem­ploy­ment in the 1930s, crime in the 1960s, mass immi­gra­tion now. Vot­ers get to decide what the country’s prob­lems are. Polit­i­cal elites have to devise solu­tions to those prob­lems. If dif­fi­cult issues go unad­dressed by respon­si­ble lead­ers, they will be exploit­ed by irre­spon­si­ble ones.” I high­light­ed a piece by Frum with a sim­i­lar theme back in issue 175. This is a very thought­ful arti­cle. 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.

Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 335

spici­er con­tent than nor­mal — you have been warned

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 335. The num­ber 335 is pret­ty cool because it is divis­i­ble by the num­ber of primes below it (335 = 67 · 5, and there are 67 primes less than 335).

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. No, Reli­gious Free­dom Doesn’t Send Peo­ple to Hell (Rus­sell Moore, Chris­tian­i­ty Today): “Reli­gious free­dom is a restric­tion on the pow­er of the state to set itself up as a medi­a­tor between God and human­i­ty. It is not an affir­ma­tion of idol­a­try, just as say­ing, ‘The gov­ern­ment shouldn’t take your baby away and raise your chil­dren’ is not an affir­ma­tion of bad par­ent­ing. Say­ing par­ents should raise their chil­dren, instead of the gov­ern­ment, does not mean everyone’s par­ent­ing is good.”
  2. About iden­ti­ty issues
    • No, the Rev­o­lu­tion Isn’t Over (N.S. Lyons, Sub­stack): “In what is rapid­ly becom­ing one of my pre­ferred expla­na­tions for the Rev­o­lu­tion, the evo­lu­tion­ary anthropologist/mathematician/prophet of doom Peter Turchin has iden­ti­fied ‘elite over­pro­duc­tion’ as hav­ing been one of the top dri­vers of rev­o­lu­tion and civ­il con­flict through­out his­to­ry. He points to the ten­den­cy for deca­dent soci­eties to pro­duce far more overe­d­u­cat­ed elites than there are elite-lev­el jobs, lead­ing to large num­bers of under­em­ployed, resent­ful elite-class intel­lec­tu­als of the type who tend pine after the posi­tion and sta­tus they ‘deserve’ and even­tu­al­ly start spend­ing their free time start­ing rev­o­lu­tion­ary cells.”
      • This is long and full of insight. And very, very spicy. I have no idea who the author is — N.S. Lyons is a pen name for a DC area ana­lyst with exper­tise in the Chi­nese Com­mu­nist Par­ty. I assume he finds the pen name nec­es­sary to pro­tect his pro­fes­sion­al rep­u­ta­tion when he writes about Amer­i­can cul­ture. Did I men­tion it was spicy?
    • The Trans Move­ment Is Not About Rights Any­more (Andrew Sul­li­van, Sub­stack): “This week, the writer Col­in Wright posed on Twit­ter the fol­low­ing ques­tion: ‘What rights do trans peo­ple cur­rent­ly not have but want that don’t involve replac­ing bio­log­i­cal sex with one’s sub­jec­tive ‘gender iden­ti­ty’?’ And the response was, of course, crick­ets. The truth is: the 6–3 Bostock deci­sion places trans peo­ple in every state under the pro­tec­tion of the Civ­il Rights Act of 1964. It’s done. It’s built on the stur­dy pro­hi­bi­tion on sex dis­crim­i­na­tion. A Trump nom­i­nee wrote the rul­ing. What the trans move­ment is now doing, after this com­pre­hen­sive vic­to­ry, is not about rights at all. It is about cul­tur­al rev­o­lu­tion.”
    • Why I am no longer a tenured pro­fes­sor at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Toron­to (Jor­dan Peter­son, Nation­al Post): “My stu­dents are also part­ly unac­cept­able pre­cise­ly because they are my stu­dents. I am aca­d­e­m­ic per­sona non gra­ta, because of my unac­cept­able philo­soph­i­cal posi­tions. And this isn’t just some incon­ve­nience. These facts ren­dered my job moral­ly unten­able. How can I accept prospec­tive researchers and train them in good con­science know­ing their employ­ment prospects to be min­i­mal?”
    • Being Jew­ish in an Unrav­el­ing Amer­i­ca (Bari Weiss, Sub­stack): “The bad guy was killed. The good guys were saved. It doesn’t often turn out that way. All the Jews I know—even the atheists—are thank­ing God.  But why, despite my grat­i­tude, do I feel so much rage? Why does it feel like there is so lit­tle com­fort to be found? What has changed? I did not feel this way in the hor­rif­ic after­math of the Tree of Life massacre—the most lethal in all of Amer­i­can Jew­ish his­to­ry.… What I now see is this: In Amer­i­ca cap­tured by trib­al­ism and dehu­man­iza­tion, in an Amer­i­ca swept up by ide­olo­gies that pit us against one anoth­er in a zero-sum game, in an Amer­i­ca enthralled with the poi­so­nous idea that some groups mat­ter more than oth­ers, not all Jews—and not all Jew­ish victims—are treat­ed equal­ly. What seems to mat­ter most to media pun­dits and politi­cians is not the Jews them­selves, but the iden­ti­ties of their attack­ers. And it scares me.”
  3. The Pro-Life Move­men­t’s Moral Dou­ble­s­peak (Aaron Renn, Sub­stack): “But the mod­ern Chris­t­ian church has put forth a fake real­i­ty in which women are almost always the vic­tim except in rare, extreme cas­es. They seem inca­pable of admit­ting that women who abort their babies know what they are doing. They can’t bring them­selves to even acknowl­edge that women ini­ti­ate about 70% of all divorces. When pas­tors write entire books about mar­riage and nev­er once men­tion the basic and well known fact that women file for the vast major­i­ty of divorces – and that’s every Chris­t­ian mar­riage book I’ve ever read – they aren’t seri­ous peo­ple. They jus­ti­fy and excuse almost any female behav­ior, and even twist real­i­ty to some­how blame men for it.” There are sev­er­al uncom­fort­able insights in this essay.
  4. China’s Births Hit His­toric Low, a Polit­i­cal Prob­lem for Bei­jing (Steven Lee Myers and Alexan­dra Steven­son, New York Times): “The num­ber of births fell to 10.6 mil­lion in 2021, com­pared with 12 mil­lion the year before, accord­ing to fig­ures report­ed on Mon­day by the Nation­al Bureau of Sta­tis­tics. That was few­er even than the num­ber in 1961, when the Great Leap For­ward, Mao Zedong’s eco­nom­ic pol­i­cy, result­ed in wide­spread famine and death.”
  5. Buy Things, Not Expe­ri­ences (Harold Lee, per­son­al blog):  “…the focus on min­i­mal­ism sounds like a new form of con­spic­u­ous con­sump­tion. Now that even the poor can afford mate­r­i­al goods, let’s den­i­grate goods while high­light­ing the remain­ing lux­u­ries that only the afflu­ent can enjoy and show off to their friends.”
    • This is a short, well-argued con­trar­i­an take. Stuff like this is cat­nip to me.
  6. About the pan­dem­ic:
    • Hong Kongers Rebel Against Order to Hand Over Ham­sters (Rob Quinn, News­er): “After a woman and 11 ham­sters in the pet shop she worked in test­ed pos­i­tive for COVID, author­i­ties said Tues­day that any­body who bought a ham­ster on or after Dec. 22 should hand it in to be euth­a­nized. But while the ter­ri­to­ry gen­er­al­ly has a high lev­el of com­pli­ance with COVID orders, the ham­ster order was wide­ly seen as a step too far…”
    • To Fight Covid, We Need to Think Less Like Doc­tors (Aaron E. Car­roll, New York Times): “Car­ing for an indi­vid­ual and pro­tect­ing a pop­u­la­tion require dif­fer­ent pri­or­i­ties, prac­tices and ways of think­ing. While it may sound coun­ter­in­tu­itive, to heal the coun­try and put our Covid-19 response on the right track, we need to think less like doc­tors.” The author is both a physi­cian and also the chief health offi­cer at Indi­ana Uni­ver­si­ty.
    • Omi­cron opti­mist, pes­simist or fatal­ist – which are you? (Tim Har­ford, per­son­al blog): “Is this the point at which we should shrug our shoul­ders and give up? Omi­cron has prompt­ed three kinds of reac­tion: opti­mism, pes­simism and fatal­ism.… What’s con­fus­ing is that all three views may be right. Omi­cron is quite plau­si­bly mild, cat­a­stroph­ic and inevitable all at once.” The author is a British economist. 
    • Lying About Covid For ‘International Har­mony’ (Rod Dreher, The Amer­i­can Con­ser­v­a­tive): “Inch by painful inch, the truth is being dragged out about how this pan­dem­ic start­ed. It is just about under­stand­able, if not for­giv­able, that Chi­nese sci­en­tists have obfus­cat­ed vital infor­ma­tion about ear­ly cas­es and their work with sim­i­lar virus­es in Wuhan’s lab­o­ra­to­ries: they were sub­ject to fierce edicts from a ruth­less, total­i­tar­i­an regime. It is more shock­ing to dis­cov­er in emails released this week that some west­ern sci­en­tists were also say­ing dif­fer­ent things in pub­lic from what they thought in pri­vate.” Con­tains excerpts from a pay­walled arti­cle.
    • School Clo­sures Were a Cat­a­stroph­ic Error. Pro­gres­sives Still Haven’t Reck­oned With It. (Jonathan Chait, NY Mag­a­zine): “It is always eas­i­er to diag­nose these patholo­gies when they are tak­ing place on the oth­er side. You’ve prob­a­bly seen the raft of papers show­ing how vac­cine uptake cor­re­lates with Demo­c­ra­t­ic vot­ing and COVID deaths cor­re­late with Repub­li­can vot­ing. Per­haps you have mar­veled at the spec­ta­cle of Repub­li­can elites active­ly harm­ing their own audi­ence. But the same thing Fox News hosts were doing to their elder­ly sup­port­ers, pro­gres­sive activists were doing to their side’s young ones.” It may not be obvi­ous, but this arti­cle dove­tails very nice­ly with the Dreher arti­cle about elites not being truth­ful and not reck­on­ing with mis­takes.
  7. The long-term effects of protes­tant activ­i­ties in Chi­na (Yuyu Chen, Hui Wang, Se Yan, Jour­nal of Com­par­a­tive Eco­nom­ics): “Our find­ings imply that late-nine­teenth- and ear­ly-twen­ti­eth-cen­tu­ry Protes­tant mis­sion­ar­ies pio­neered that mod­ern­iza­tion move­ment by dis­sem­i­nat­ing, along with Chris­tian­i­ty, West­ern sci­ence and tech­nol­o­gy to even the most remote regions of Chi­na. Such efforts accel­er­at­ed the pace of mod­ern­iza­tion, con­tributed to the accu­mu­la­tion of human cap­i­tal, and reshaped the social val­ues of local peo­ple. Although these his­tor­i­cal lega­cies of mis­sion­ar­ies’ under­tak­ings were sup­pressed dur­ing the Cul­tur­al Rev­o­lu­tion, they rapid­ly resurged and began to con­tribute to socioe­co­nom­ic devel­op­ments when Chi­na began to open up and reform.” The authors appear to be schol­ars at Peking Uni­ver­si­ty.

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 Jesus, Mary, and Joe Jonas (Jonathan Parks‐Ramage, Medi­um): “How, in famous­ly lib­er­al Hol­ly­wood and among sta­tis­ti­cal­ly pro­gres­sive mil­len­ni­als, had good old‐fashioned evan­ge­lism [sic] gained pop­u­lar­i­ty? In this con­text, a church like Real­i­ty L.A. seemed like some­thing that could nev­er work. But that evening, as I reflect­ed on the trou­bled actress and the psy­chic bru­tal­i­ties inflict­ed by the enter­tain­ment indus­try, it occurred to me that I had under­es­ti­mat­ed Hollywood’s biggest prod­uct: lost souls.” First shared in vol­ume 192 

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 334

a whole lot­ta mag­ic tricks at the end of 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.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. A Nation of Chris­tians Is Not Nec­es­sar­i­ly a Chris­t­ian Nation (David French, The Dis­patch): “There are influ­en­tial peo­ple and insti­tu­tions in this coun­try who’ve tak­en the posi­tion that ortho­dox expres­sions of Chris­t­ian sex­u­al moral­i­ty rep­re­sent noth­ing more than big­otry and hatred.  But as much hos­til­i­ty as I’ve seen and expe­ri­enced from some sec­u­lar left­ists in response to the pub­lic expres­sion of my Chris­t­ian val­ues, noth­ing com­pares to hos­til­i­ty I’ve seen and expe­ri­enced from self-iden­ti­fied Chris­tians when I root­ed my oppo­si­tion to Don­ald Trump in the same Chris­t­ian val­ues that some­times earned me scorn in the Ivy League.”
    • Con­tra French on Chris­tian­i­ty’s Decline (Ross Douthat, Sub­stack): “In oth­er words, in the his­to­ry of the Unit­ed States from the Amer­i­can Rev­o­lu­tion to Mar­tin Luther King Jr. you see two things hap­pen­ing togeth­er: the pri­vate prac­tice of faith becomes pret­ty steadi­ly more robust, and the gov­ern­ment becomes more com­mit­ted to what most of us, reli­gious and not, now con­sid­er basic ele­ments of jus­tice and mer­cy. Over this mul­ti-gen­er­a­tional process, you could rea­son­ably say that Amer­i­ca remained man­i­fest­ly imper­fect but came clos­er, how­ev­er lurch­ing­ly, to the com­bi­na­tion of wide­spread per­son­al faith and greater polit­i­cal jus­tice that French argues char­ac­ter­izes the Chris­t­ian soci­ety. That this hap­pened, quite often, through con­flict between Protes­tants (both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God, etc.) is unde­ni­able but not, it seems to me, a par­tic­u­lar­ly telling cri­tique: In a heav­i­ly Protes­tant soci­ety how else would change come?” A very impres­sive response.
    • America’s Chris­t­ian His­to­ry Is Broad­er Than Its White Protes­tant Past (David French, The Dis­patch): “Because Amer­i­ca is a major­i­ty Chris­t­ian nation, Amer­i­can progress has depend­ed on Chris­t­ian action. But also because Amer­i­ca is a major­i­ty Chris­t­ian nation, Amer­i­can oppres­sion has depend­ed on Chris­t­ian action as well. And a move­ment that’s dis­pro­por­tion­ate­ly white and Chris­t­ian needs to remem­ber that sober­ing fact.” A sol­id sur­re­join­der, but I think I award the match point to Douthat even though I usu­al­ly agree with French more.
  2. Pan­dem­ic stuff:
    • One More Time: What Do You Want Us to Do About Covid that We Aren’t Doing Already? (Fred­die deBoer, Sub­stack): “I will not live in fear. And I sus­pect that this is at the heart of all of it — for com­plex soci­o­log­i­cal rea­sons, [our] elites are made up of peo­ple who suf­fer from anx­i­ety and inse­cu­ri­ty at vast­ly dis­pro­por­tion­ate rates, and they go through life need­ing their own feel­ings to be val­i­dat­ed by every­one else. This is very scary for them, and if it’s not scary for some of the rest of us, they expe­ri­ence that as implied judg­ment.” This is very, very good once you get past the Syr­ia stuff up top (which is help­ful as a fram­ing device, but goes on a lit­tle too long).
    • Why UCSF COVID expert Bob Wachter will soon be ‘over’ the pan­dem­ic (Eric Ting, SF Gate): “I believe it’s like­li­est that it peaks soon and comes down in Feb­ru­ary, and we’ll find our­selves in a world where the risk to ful­ly vac­ci­nat­ed indi­vid­u­als is quite low, and it gets low for a few rea­sons. For one, every­one should have some immu­ni­ty because with the unvac­ci­nat­ed, most if not all will have been infect­ed by the time this wave ends. This vari­ant of the virus, which is now dom­i­nant, is more mild on aver­age. And the risk is low­er for immuno­com­pro­mised and high-risk indi­vid­u­als because of the increas­ing avail­abil­i­ty of med­ica­tions that decrease the chance they’ll get super sick.” The inter­vie­wee is chair of the Depart­ment of Med­i­cine at UCSF.
    • Dear Stan­ford: don’t force boost­ers on stu­dents (Monte Fis­ch­er, Stan­ford Dai­ly): “When Paul Offit — direc­tor of the Vac­cine Edu­ca­tion Cen­ter at the Children’s Hos­pi­tal of Philadel­phia, mem­ber of the FDA’s vac­cine advi­so­ry com­mit­tee, decades-long ene­my of the anti-vax move­ment and co-inven­tor of a rotavirus vac­cine — tells his own twen­ty-some­thing son not to get boost­ed, you might start to ask some ques­tions about the wis­dom of Stanford’s lat­est man­date.” The author is a PhD can­di­date in MS&E.
  3. Is the West Becom­ing Pagan Again? (Christo­pher Cald­well, New York Times): “Ms. Delsol’s inge­nious approach is to exam­ine the civ­i­liza­tion­al change under­way in light of that last one 1,600 years ago. Chris­tians brought what she calls a ‘nor­ma­tive inver­sion’ to pagan Rome. That is, they prized much that the Romans held in con­tempt and con­demned much that the Romans prized, par­tic­u­lar­ly in mat­ters relat­ed to sex and fam­i­ly. Today the Chris­t­ian over­lay on West­ern cul­tur­al life is being removed, reveal­ing a lot of pagan urges that it cov­ered up. To state Ms. Delsol’s argu­ment crude­ly, what is hap­pen­ing today is an undo­ing, but it is also a redo­ing. We are invert­ing the nor­ma­tive inver­sion. We are repa­ganiz­ing.”
  4. New Math Research Group Reflects a Schism in the Field (Rachel Crow­ell, Sci­en­tif­ic Amer­i­can): “A new orga­ni­za­tion called the Asso­ci­a­tion for Math­e­mat­i­cal Research (AMR) has ignit­ed fierce debates in the math research and edu­ca­tion com­mu­ni­ties since it was launched last Octo­ber.… The AMR claims to have no posi­tion on social jus­tice issues, and crit­ics see its silence on those top­ics as part of a back­lash against inclu­siv­i­ty efforts.… The con­tro­ver­sy reflects a grow­ing divi­sion between researchers who want to keep sci­en­tif­ic and math­e­mat­i­cal pur­suits sep­a­rate from social issues that they see as irrel­e­vant to research and those who say even pure math­e­mat­ics can­not be con­sid­ered sep­a­rate­ly from the racism and sex­ism in its cul­ture.”
  5. We need to be able to talk about trans ath­letes and women’s sports (Megan McAr­dle, Wash­ing­ton Post): “Male puber­ty makes you taller, con­fers greater mus­cle and bone mass, larg­er heart and lung capac­i­ty rel­a­tive to your size, and more hemo­glo­bin. For cis­gen­der men, this trans­lates to rough­ly a 6 to 10 per­cent advan­tage over bio­log­i­cal women in sports such as run­ning and swim­ming, though the gap can be larg­er in oth­er domains, and in a few sports female biol­o­gy actu­al­ly con­veys some advan­tage. That 6 to 10 per­cent might sound mod­est, but at the elite lev­el, where 1 per­cent to 2 per­cent dif­fer­ences can eas­i­ly make the mar­gin of vic­to­ry, it’s over­whelm­ing. Jamaica’s Elaine Thomp­son-Her­ah, the fastest woman in the world, would lose to America’s best high school boys, and the fastest pitch ever record­ed by a woman would be unim­pres­sive for many high school base­ball teams.”
  6. The Bad Guys Are Win­ning (Anne Apple­baum, The Atlantic): “As Vladimir Putin fig­ured out a long time ago, mass arrests are unnec­es­sary if you can jail, tor­ture, or pos­si­bly mur­der just a few key peo­ple. The rest will be fright­ened into stay­ing home. Even­tu­al­ly they will become apa­thet­ic, because they believe noth­ing can change.” Rec­om­mend­ed by an alum­na.
  7. Why the Catholic Church is Los­ing Latin Amer­i­ca (Fran­cis X. Roc­ca, Luciana Mag­a­l­haes & Saman­tha Pear­son, The Wall Street Jour­nal): “The rise of lib­er­a­tion the­ol­o­gy in the 1960s and  ’70s, a time when the Catholic Church in Latin Amer­i­ca increas­ing­ly stressed its mis­sion as one of social jus­tice, in some cas­es draw­ing on Marx­ist ideas, failed to counter the appeal of Protes­tant faiths. Or, in the words of a now-leg­endary quip, var­i­ous­ly attrib­uted to Catholic and Protes­tant sources: ‘The Catholic Church opt­ed for the poor and the poor opt­ed for the Pen­te­costals.’ ” 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 A (Not So) Sec­u­lar Saint (James K.A. Smith, Los Ange­les Review of Books): “Mill’s lega­cy was effec­tive­ly ‘edited’ by his philo­soph­i­cal and polit­i­cal dis­ci­ples, excis­ing any hint of reli­gious life. One would nev­er know from the canon in our phi­los­o­phy depart­ments, for exam­ple, that Mill wrote an appre­cia­tive essay on ‘Theism.’” First shared in vol­ume 190.

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 333

ways in which many uni­ver­si­ties are mis­guid­ed

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 333, which makes me won­der what I’ll do when I get to vol­ume 666. Halfway to a dis­turb­ing mile­stone!

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. COVID per­spec­tives, many crit­i­cal of uni­ver­si­ty poli­cies.
    • Uni­ver­si­ties’ Covid Poli­cies Defy Sci­ence and Rea­son (Mar­ty Makary, Bari Weis­s’s Sub­stack): “Accord­ing to the CDC, the risk of a ful­ly vac­ci­nat­ed adult end­ing up in the hos­pi­tal for Covid was 1 in 26,000 for the week end­ing in Novem­ber 27. Who was that one per­son? Not a col­lege stu­dent.” The author is a sur­geon at Johns Hop­kins.
    • Uni­ver­si­ty COVID Poli­cies Are Bad for Stu­dents (Emi­ly Oster, The Atlantic): “I don’t know if uni­ver­si­ties were right to go large­ly or ful­ly remote in 2020. The world before vac­cines was a dif­fer­ent one, and the choic­es were dif­fi­cult. I am cer­tain, though, that mov­ing to remote instruc­tion is the wrong choice now.” The author is an econ­o­mist at Brown.
    • Are Prince­ton and Yale impris­on­ing their stu­dents? (Tyler Cowen, Mar­gin­al Rev­o­lu­tion): “I doubt these poli­cies will sig­nif­i­cant­ly lim­it the spread of Covid. But my objec­tion is more fun­da­men­tal: They put uni­ver­si­ties in the unten­able posi­tion of both pan­ick­ing about Covid and treat­ing Covid as triv­ial. Giv­en the pur­pose of a uni­ver­si­ty as an edu­ca­tion­al leader, a uni­ver­si­ty that is hyp­o­crit­i­cal and rhetor­i­cal­ly cor­rupt is fail­ing out­right.” The author is an econ­o­mist at George Mason Uni­ver­si­ty. The link is to a non-pay­walled excerpt of a pay­walled arti­cle.
    • Covid 1/6/22: The Blip (Zvi Mow­showitz, Less Wrong): “If you don’t want your stu­dents infect­ed in Jan­u­ary, you have zero options. You do have the option to ensure they are not infect­ed on cam­pus by not open­ing the cam­pus, in which case the infec­tions will not be your fault, but the infec­tions will still hap­pen.” Long and infor­ma­tive about many things.
    • There is good news (Kate­lyn Jetelina, Sub­stack): “Vac­cines are work­ing. And not just work­ing okay, they are work­ing incred­i­bly well. I know this is hard to believe when every­one around us is test­ing pos­i­tive. But vac­cines are doing their pri­ma­ry job: keep­ing peo­ple out of the hos­pi­tal.” The author is an epi­demi­ol­o­gist in the Uni­ver­si­ty of Texas sys­tem.
    • I Saw First­hand What It Takes to Keep COVID Out of Hong Kong. It Felt Like a Dif­fer­ent Plan­et. (Car­o­line Chen, ProP­ub­li­ca): “Hong Kong’s quar­an­tine pro­ce­dures are among the strictest in the world. The city is com­mit­ted to a ‘zero-COVID’ pol­i­cy, which means it will take every pos­si­ble mea­sure to pre­vent a sin­gle case. Its poli­cies for trav­el­ers have become pro­gres­sive­ly strin­gent.”
    • The C.D.C. Is Hop­ing You’ll Fig­ure Covid Out on Your Own (Zeynep Tufek­ci, New York Times): “The gov­ern­ment can help us pull out of this fog, but it should always be based on being hon­est with the pub­lic. We aren’t expect­ing offi­cials to have crys­tal balls about every­thing, but we want them to empow­er and inform us while prepar­ing for even­tu­al­i­ties — good or bad. Two years is too long to still be hop­ing for luck to get through all this.”
  2. Jesus Coor­di­na­tor (Ray­mond Partsch III, The Dai­ly Iber­ian): “For years now, the Ragin’ Cajuns have stayed the night before a home game at the Hilton Gar­den Inn across the street from Cajun Field. The hotel’s swim­ming pool has served for dozens of bap­tisms per­formed by Treuil. ‘The Hilton may have more bap­tisms than the local church­es,’ Wingert­er joked. ‘But in all seri­ous­ness, it is such an incred­i­ble thing to wit­ness. To watch them find their path and Eric help them with that is spe­cial.’ ” This was my cam­pus pas­tor. Real­ly good arti­cle about him.
  3. Ven­ture Cap­i­tal­ists See Prof­it in Prayer (Daniel Sil­li­man, Chris­tian­i­ty Today): “…while prayer, Bible read­ing, and Scrip­ture med­i­ta­tion will always be free, the smart­phone apps that help peo­ple do those things in 2022 offer the promise of great poten­tial prof­it.” I have com­plex feel­ings about this.
  4. What It Means To See Jesus (Casey Cep, The New York­er): “What Hud­son calls appear­ances are com­mu­nal visions, with more than one per­son see­ing the same image of Jesus at the same time; appari­tions are when Jesus seems to be present in the phys­i­cal world, as though any­one can see him, yet only the vision­ary actu­al­ly does so; with visions, the vision­ary alone can see Jesus, and is ful­ly aware that no one else can.“This is way more inter­est­ing than I expect­ed.
  5. Chi­na har­vests mass­es of data on West­ern tar­gets, doc­u­ments show (Cate Cadell, Wash­ing­ton Post): “The exact scope of China’s gov­ern­ment pub­lic opin­ion mon­i­tor­ing indus­try is unclear, but there have been some indi­ca­tions about its size in Chi­nese state media. In 2014, the state-backed news­pa­per Chi­na Dai­ly said more than 2 mil­lion peo­ple were work­ing as pub­lic opin­ion ana­lysts. In 2018, the People’s Dai­ly, anoth­er offi­cial organ, said the government’s online opin­ion analy­sis indus­try was worth ‘tens of bil­lions of yuan,’ equiv­a­lent to bil­lions of dol­lars, and was grow­ing at a rate of 50 per­cent a year.”
  6. Trans pris­on­ers ‘switch gen­der again’ once freed from women’s units (Mar­cel­lo Mega and John Booth­man, The Times): “The dis­clo­sure — in a study pub­lished in the British Jour­nal of Crim­i­nol­o­gy — has raised fresh con­cerns about self-iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of gen­der pos­ing a risk to women’s safe­ty as first min­is­ter Nico­la Stur­geon pre­pares to press ahead with gen­der recog­ni­tion leg­is­la­tion this year.”
  7. Top-Down Let­down (Jon­ah Gold­berg, The Dis­patch): “You know what vot­er sup­pres­sion, vot­er fraud, and les­bian vam­pires all have in com­mon? They all played the same role in the 2020 pres­i­den­tial elec­tion, with equal effect.” Gold­berg is a delight­ful word­smith.

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 Philoso­pher Redefin­ing Equal­i­ty (Nathan Heller, New York­er): “When she was three, her moth­er asked, ‘Why do you allow your broth­er to talk for you?’—why didn’t she speak for her­self? ‘Until now, it sim­ply was not necessary,’ Eliz­a­beth said. It was the first full sen­tence that she had ever uttered.” I think that’s the best first sen­tence I’ve ever heard of. The arti­cle is a tad long, but rec­om­mend­ed. First shared in vol­ume 189.

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 332

Final 2021 install­ment, includ­ing some good news about a bad dis­ease.

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.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. Learn­ing in dou­ble time: The effect of lec­ture video speed on imme­di­ate and delayed com­pre­hen­sion (Mur­phy et al, Applied Cog­ni­tive Psy­chol­o­gy): “We pre­sent­ed par­tic­i­pants with lec­ture videos at dif­fer­ent speeds and test­ed imme­di­ate and delayed (1 week) com­pre­hen­sion. Results revealed min­i­mal costs incurred by increas­ing video speed from 1x to 1.5x, or 2x speed, but per­for­mance declined beyond 2x speed. We also com­pared learn­ing out­comes after watch­ing videos once at 1x or twice at 2x speed. There was not an advan­tage to watch­ing twice at 2x speed but if par­tic­i­pants watched the video again at 2x speed imme­di­ate­ly before the test, com­pared with watch­ing once at 1x a week before the test, com­pre­hen­sion improved. Thus, increas­ing the speed of videos (up to 2x) may be an effi­cient strat­e­gy, espe­cial­ly if stu­dents use the time saved for addi­tion­al study­ing or rewatch­ing the videos, but learn­ers should do this addi­tion­al study­ing short­ly before an exam.” The authors are researchers at UCLA.
  2. The pan­dem­ic:
    • Our play­book to fight covid-19 is out­dat­ed. Here are 10 updates for 2022. (Joseph G. Allen, Wash­ing­ton Post): “Pub­lic health’s cred­i­bil­i­ty is on the line now. The pub­lic and busi­ness­es see that pub­lic health guid­ance isn’t keep­ing up with the times, and they’re right.” The author is a pro­fes­sor of envi­ron­men­tal health at Har­vard.
    • Pan-coro­n­avirus “super” vac­cine (Kate­lyn Jetelina, Sub­stack): “This clin­i­cal tri­al has tak­en longer than expect­ed because peo­ple can only par­tic­i­pate if they have not been pre­vi­ous­ly vac­ci­nat­ed or infect­ed with COVID. As you can imag­ine, the pool of eli­gi­ble and will­ing par­tic­i­pants is get­ting small­er and small­er.” The author is an epi­demi­ol­o­gist at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Texas Health Cen­ter.
    • Covid 12/30: Infin­i­ty War (Zvi Mow­showitz, Less Wrong): “For five weeks, we’ve seen Omi­cron dou­ble and dou­ble again. That which can’t go on for­ev­er, won’t. There aren’t many dou­blings left. This is it. The CDC’s revised guide­lines made it even more clear that we’re going to col­lec­tive­ly make the right deci­sion, let it hap­pen, and hope for the best. It’s not like we have any choice in the mat­ter.” Long and full of time­ly infor­ma­tion.
  3. The Miss­ing Data in the Infla­tion Debate (Aus­tan Gools­bee, New York Times): “…the pain of infla­tion may not be shared equal­ly.… In Novem­ber, online prices fell 0.2 per­cent as the C.P.I. rose 0.8 per­cent. In oth­er words: The more some­one shops online rather than in stores, the less infla­tion the indi­vid­ual has faced. Notably, shop­ping online is far more com­mon among high-income peo­ple. And dur­ing the pan­dem­ic the prac­tice has grown more preva­lent.” The author is an econ prof at U Chica­go.
  4. Evan­gel­i­cals a Ris­ing Force Inside Argentina’s Pris­ons (Ger­man de los San­tos & Rodri­go Abd, Chris­tian­i­ty Today): “Many here began ped­dling drugs as teenagers and got stuck in a spi­ral of vio­lence that led some to their graves and oth­ers to over­crowd­ed pris­ons divid­ed between two forces: drug lords and preach­ers. Over the past 20 years, Argen­tine prison author­i­ties have encour­aged, to one extent or anoth­er, the cre­ation of units effec­tive­ly run by evan­gel­i­cal inmates—sometimes grant­i­ng them a few extra spe­cial priv­i­leges, such as more time in fresh air.” An Asso­ci­at­ed Press sto­ry.
  5. The secret truth of the stu­dent debt cri­sis (Ryan Coop­er, The Week): “The truth is the ques­tion of whether stu­dent debt should be can­celed is large­ly irrel­e­vant. Most stu­dent debt will be can­celed soon­er or lat­er, because an ever-grow­ing share of bor­row­ers can­not pos­si­bly repay their loans. Ever.”
  6. Build­ing Trust Across the Polit­i­cal Divide (April Law­son, Com­ment): “The Blue-inflect­ed tra­di­tion­al empa­thy-build­ing forms of bridge-build­ing have a great deal to rec­om­mend them. But there is a flaw: the implic­it belief under­ly­ing this style of bridg­ing is that we can learn to love each oth­er by see­ing that we are all deeply the same. While true in some sens­es, this miss­es a fun­da­men­tal insight about rela­tion­ship that most of us know from expe­ri­ence: We have the capac­i­ty to build rela­tion­ship through con­flict.” Hon­est­ly describes very real dynam­ics. Almost a year old but I’m just see­ing it now.
  7. Musko­gee stu­dent hon­ored for sav­ing 2 lives (Cathy Spauld­ing, Enid News & Eagle): “Davy­on, who attends the 6th and 7th Grade Acad­e­my, used an abdom­i­nal thrust on a school mate who was chok­ing on a bot­tle cap. Lat­er that day, Davy­on res­cued a woman from a burn­ing house.”
    • First, this 6th grad­er deserves huge props. Sec­ond, the sto­ries are actu­al­ly a lit­tle com­i­cal when you read the details. So much so that “saved” might be gen­er­ous on the burn­ing house. Still, boss.

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 God­speed: The Pace Of Being Known (Vimeo): a stu­dent brought this 30 minute video to my atten­tion and said it made her think about how she should be liv­ing in her dorm. Worth watch­ing as you pre­pare to return to cam­pus. First shared in vol­ume 181.

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 331

the Christ­mas Eve edi­tion

Mer­ry Christ­mas! 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 331, a prime num­ber.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. Mark Lowry, Did You Know Your Mary Song Would Be Con­tro­ver­sial? (Bob Smi­etana, Chris­tian­i­ty Today): “He added that most of the ques­tions he had did not make their way into the song—only the ones that rhymed made it.”
  2. Kid­napped Mis­sion­ar­ies Made Dar­ing Escape from Their Cap­tors, Fled for Their Lives on Foot at Night (Steve War­ren, CBN News): “ ‘After much dis­cus­sion and prayer, they became solid­ly unit­ed that God seemed to be lead­ing them [to escape]. He said they sought spe­cif­ic signs from God, and He con­firmed over and over that the tim­ing was­n’t right yet. Then, the night of Wednes­day, Decem­ber 15 arrived. When they sensed the tim­ing was right, they found a way to open the door that was closed and blocked, filed silent­ly to the path that they had cho­sen to fol­low, and quick­ly left the place that they were held despite the fact that numer­ous guards were close by,’ Showal­ter said.”
  3. COVID relat­ed news
    • Media Ignores GOOD NEWS On Pan­dem­ic (Break­ing Points, YouTube): thir­teen encour­ag­ing min­utes. The title is a lit­tle click­baity, but I guess they got­ta pay the bills.
    • The F.D.A. clears Pfizer’s Covid pills for high-risk patients 12 and old­er. (Rebec­ca Rob­bin­s and Carl Zim­mer, New York Times): “With­in a week of autho­riza­tion, Pfiz­er is expect­ed to deliv­er to the Unit­ed States enough of its pills to cov­er 65,000 Amer­i­cans. At cur­rent infec­tion rates, that would be enough sup­ply for less than one day if it were giv­en to half of peo­ple in the Unit­ed States who test pos­i­tive for the virus. Pfiz­er is expect­ed to deliv­er to the Unit­ed States anoth­er 200,000 treat­ment cours­es in Jan­u­ary and then anoth­er 150,000 treat­ment cours­es in Feb­ru­ary. The pace of deliv­er­ies is expect­ed to increase sharply after that.” This is tremen­dous news.
    • Pro­fes­sion­al Sports Are Learn­ing to Live With COVID. We’re Next. (Will Leitch, NY Mag): “The leagues are now admit­ting what most of us are real­iz­ing but wary of say­ing out loud: COVID is just a part of our lives now, and if we don’t learn to live with it, we’re nev­er going to be able to do any­thing.”
    • The Vac­cine Moment, part three (Paul Kingsnorth, Sub­stack): “It’s fair to say that the ‘conspiracy the­o­rist­s’ have had a good pan­dem­ic.”
    • Covid Pan­ic is a Site of Inter-Elite Com­pe­ti­tion (Fred­die deBoer, Sub­stack): “Rare and fatal events some­times occur; that’s life. When you can you mit­i­gate the risk. Death from a car acci­dent is far more like­ly for me than death from Covid. It’s still rare, but there’s a risk, and putting on a seat­belt is a rea­son­able mit­i­ga­tion tac­tic. Sim­ply nev­er get­ting in a car, though, would not be rea­son­able. The risk reduc­tion would not out­weigh the con­sid­er­able costs. So I don’t make that bar­gain. And thus with Covid. I’m vac­ci­nat­ed, I mask in most indoor set­tings, and if I devel­op symp­toms I’ll imme­di­ate­ly seek a test and quar­an­tine myself. Those are accept­able trade­offs, for me. As a now triple-vaxxed per­son who has had the virus pre­vi­ous­ly I am intent on liv­ing my life as nor­mal­ly as pos­si­ble, which includes not undu­ly wor­ry­ing about it or demand­ing oth­ers do so. And I would argue that expect­ing oth­er­wise from me would make you func­tion­al­ly an anti-vaxxer.”
    • Why the Supreme Court Hasn’t Ruled (For Now) on Vac­cine Man­dates (Mark Movs­esian, The Pub­lic Dis­course): “The Court has not explained its rea­sons in these cas­es. But the jus­tices’ cau­tion is not sur­pris­ing, for a few rea­sons. First, reli­gious exemp­tion claims gen­er­al­ly pose hard ques­tions, which are par­tic­u­lar­ly trou­ble­some in this con­text. The COVID-19 pan­dem­ic has inten­si­fied divi­sions about the val­ue of reli­gion and reli­gious free­dom in our coun­try, and the jus­tices might wish to avoid doing some­thing to pro­voke fur­ther con­flict. Sec­ond, the Maine and New York law­suits are cur­rent­ly at the pre­lim­i­nary injunc­tion stage, and the fac­tu­al records in the cas­es are still unclear. The Court might rea­son­ably think that it should allow the low­er courts an oppor­tu­ni­ty to con­sid­er the claims fur­ther before it issues any rul­ings. Final­ly, the Court might think that state and local gov­ern­ments will them­selves see the pru­dence of offer­ing reli­gious exemp­tions, as many already have done, con­sid­er­ing the dif­fi­cul­ties vac­cine man­dates have cre­at­ed for health­care and oth­er ser­vices.”
  4. COVID-adja­cent but real­ly about the FDA
    • The FDA Has Punt­ed Deci­sions About Luvox Pre­scrip­tion To The Deep­est Recess­es Of The Human Soul (Scott Alexan­der, Astral Codex Ten): “As a psy­chi­a­trist, I’m not sup­posed to say flip­pant things like ‘we give SSRIs out like can­dy’. We do care­ful risk-ben­e­fit analy­sis and when appro­pri­ate we screen patients for var­i­ous risk fac­tors. But after we do all that stuff, we give them to 10% of Amer­i­cans, com­pared to 12% of Amer­i­can­s who got can­dy last Hal­loween. So you can draw your own con­clu­sion about how severe we think the risks are.”
    • This Sci­en­tist Cre­at­ed a Rapid Test Just Weeks Into the Pan­dem­ic. Here’s Why You Still Can’t Get It. (Lydia DePil­lis, ProP­ub­li­ca): “Amer­i­can med­ical device reg­u­la­tors have nev­er been enthu­si­as­tic about let­ting peo­ple test them­selves. In the 1980s, the FDA banned home tests for HIV on the grounds that peo­ple who test­ed pos­i­tive might do harm to them­selves if they did not receive simul­ta­ne­ous coun­sel­ing. In the 2010s, the agency cracked down on home genet­ic test­ing kits, con­cerned that peo­ple might make rash med­ical deci­sions as a result.”
  5. Also COVID-adja­cent but real­ly about Face­book: Rapid Response: Open let­ter from The BMJ to Mark Zucker­berg (Fiona Godlee & Kam­ran Abbasi, The BMJ): “We are aware that The BMJ is not the only high qual­i­ty infor­ma­tion provider to have been affect­ed by the incom­pe­tence of Meta’s fact check­ing regime.… Rather than invest­ing a pro­por­tion of Meta’s sub­stan­tial prof­its to help ensure the accu­ra­cy of med­ical infor­ma­tion shared through social media, you have appar­ent­ly del­e­gat­ed respon­si­bil­i­ty to peo­ple incom­pe­tent in car­ry­ing out this cru­cial task.”
  6. Why the **** Do You Trust Har­vard? (Fred­die deBoer, Sub­stack): “Har­vard exists to make sure our soci­ety is not equal. That is Harvard’s func­tion. You get that they just want to make it eas­i­er to turn down the poor but bril­liant chil­dren of Asian immi­grants, right? You under­stand that what Har­vard and its feck­less peers would like is to admit few­er stu­dents whose Kore­an par­ents clear $40,000 a year from their con­ve­nience stores, right? And you think, what, they’re going to be walk­ing around Brownsville, hand­ing out admis­sions let­ters to kids with holes in their pock­ets and a dream in their hearts? To the extent that any Black stu­dents are added to the mix by these poli­cies, it’s going to be the Jaden and Wil­low Smiths of the world. If you think Har­vard has any actu­al, gen­uine desire to fill its cam­pus with more poor Amer­i­can-born descen­dants of African slaves you are out of your fuck­ing mind.” Lan­guage warn­ing, in case that was not obvi­ous from the title. Also, much more cor­rect than many peo­ple would like to believe
  7. For­eign Drones Tip the Bal­ance in Ethiopia’s Civ­il War (Declan Walsh, New York Times): “Mr. Singer, the drone expert, said the exper­i­men­ta­tion with drone war­fare in Ethiopia and Libya has par­al­lels with the Span­ish Civ­il War in the 1930s, when out­side pow­ers used the fight to test new mil­i­tary tech­nolo­gies and to gauge inter­na­tion­al reac­tion to deter­mine what they could get away with. ‘It’s a com­bi­na­tion of war and bat­tle lab,’ he said.”

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 Amer­i­ca in one tweet:“We are liv­ing in an era of woke cap­i­tal­ism in which com­pa­nies pre­tend to care about social jus­tice to sell prod­ucts to peo­ple who pre­tend to hate capitalism.” (Clay Rout­ledge, Twit­ter) First shared in vol­ume 186.

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 330

a sur­pris­ing con­cen­tra­tion of med­ical arti­cles this week

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 330, which is the num­ber of ways to put 11 items into groups of 4.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. “What is wrong with physicians?” (from the com­ments) (Tyler Cowen, Mar­gin­al Rev­o­lu­tion): “There is a wild dis­con­nect between ‘being a physi­cian’ as under­stood by the pub­lic and what you actu­al­ly live.” Well worth read­ing for any­one con­sid­er­ing med school.
  2. On Cards, Cryp­to, and Christ (Pratyush Bud­di­ga, Sub­stack): “All I can remem­ber was singing a song and sud­den­ly feel­ing an inter­nal res­o­nance with­in me, a one­ness with some­thing far greater and more pow­er­ful than any­thing I had ever experienced. It took me out of where I was in that small church in Sin­ga­pore and con­nect­ed me with the divine. The sec­ond before I didn’t believe in God. After that moment that felt like a life­time, I knew He was real.” Rec­om­mend­ed by an alum­nus.
  3. Research: Reli­gious Amer­i­cans Less Like­ly to Divorce (Lyman Stone & Brad Wilcox, Chris­tian­i­ty Today): “Ear­li­er mar­riage is a known risk fac­tor for divorce. Pre­mar­i­tal cohab­i­ta­tion is too. Since reli­gios­i­ty tends to moti­vate ear­li­er mar­riage but less cohab­i­ta­tion, the effects on divorce are not easy to guess. What we real­ly want to know is: Do reli­gious peo­ple get divorced less? The answer appears to be yes.”
  4. Leaked SoCal hos­pi­tal records reveal huge, auto­mat­ed markups for health­care (David Lazarus, LA Times): “[The nurse’s] screen­shots, tak­en ear­li­er this year, speak for them­selves. What they show are price hikes rang­ing from 575% to 675% being auto­mat­i­cal­ly gen­er­at­ed by the hospital’s soft­ware. The eye-pop­ping increas­es are so rou­tine, appar­ent­ly, the soft­ware even dis­plays the for­mu­la it uses to con­vert rea­son­able med­ical costs to billed amounts that are much, much high­er.… This is sep­a­rate from any addi­tion­al charges for the doc­tor, anes­the­si­ol­o­gist, X‑rays or hos­pi­tal facil­i­ties.” Shared with me by an alum­nus.
  5. Destruc­tion is Still Mutu­al­ly Assured (Fred­die deBoer, Sub­stack): “Do I think it would be good if Rus­sia invad­ed Ukraine? No. Do I think that Rus­sia invad­ing Ukraine would be as bad as a nuclear war between the coun­tries with the two largest nuclear stock­piles? Also no. Not even close, actu­al­ly.”
  6. Rob Hen­der­son: How “Luxury Belief­s” Hurt the Rest of Us (Bari Weiss, pod­cast). This is a real­ly inter­est­ing inter­view.
  7. Some COVID links:
    • The Phrase “No Evi­dence” Is A Red Flag For Bad Sci­ence Com­mu­ni­ca­tion (Scott Alexan­der, Astral Codex Ten): “Sci­ence com­mu­ni­ca­tors are using the same term — ‘no evi­dence’ — to mean: 1. This thing is super plau­si­ble, and hon­est­ly very like­ly true, but we haven’t checked yet, so we can’t be sure. 2. We have hard-and-fast evi­dence that this is false, stop repeat­ing this eas­i­ly debunked lie. This is utter­ly cor­ro­sive to any­body trust­ing sci­ence jour­nal­ism.”
      • I found the title con­fus­ing. What the author means is that when­ev­er you see the phrase “no evi­dence” in a head­line you should antic­i­pate an unhelp­ful arti­cle. This comes up often in COVID-relat­ed arti­cles.
    • The CDC’s Flawed Case for Wear­ing Masks in School (David Zweig, The Atlantic): “…the CDC has promised to ‘fol­low the sci­ence’ in its COVID poli­cies. Yet the cir­cum­stances around the Ari­zona study seem to show the oppo­site. Dubi­ous research has been cit­ed after the fact, with­out trans­paren­cy, in sup­port of exist­ing agency guid­ance.”
    • Where I Live, No One Cares About COVID (Matthew Walther, The Atlantic): “…out­side the world inhab­it­ed by the pro­fes­sion­al and man­age­r­i­al class­es in a hand­ful of major met­ro­pol­i­tan areas, many, if not most, Amer­i­cans are lead­ing their lives as if COVID is over, and they have been for a long while.” Maybe not worth using the free pay­wall view unless you’re par­tic­u­lar­ly inter­est­ed in the top­ic.

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 Facts Are Not Self‐Interpreting (Twit­ter) — this is a short, sound­less video. Rec­om­mend­ed. First shared in vol­ume 184.

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.