In a loving tribute to her father, Sasha Sagan remembers how she came to learn about death. She describes an exchange in which she asked Carl if he would ever see his deceased parents again. He responded that “there was nothing he would like more in the world than to see his mother and father again, but that he had no reason — and no evidence — to support the idea of an afterlife, so he couldn’t give in to the temptation”:
Then he told me, very tenderly, that it can be dangerous to believe things just because you want them to be true. You can get tricked if you don’t question yourself and others, especially people in a position of authority. He told me that anything that’s truly real can stand up to scrutiny. As far as I can remember, this is the first time I began to understand the permanence of death. As I veered into a kind of mini existential crisis, my parents comforted me without deviating from their scientific worldview.
“You are alive right this second. That is an amazing thing,” they told me. When you consider the nearly infinite number of forks in the road that lead to any single person being born, they said, you must be grateful that you’re you at this very second.
Very high taxation of labor income would mean fewer huge compensation packages, not more revenue. Precisely as Laffer pointed out decades ago, imposing a 90 percent tax rate on something is not really a way to tax it at all — it’s a way to make sure it doesn’t happen. If you believe systematically lower CEO compensation packages would mean a mass withdrawal of talent from the business world and a collapse of American industry, then those smaller pay packages could be an economic disaster. But the more plausible theory is that systematically lower CEO compensation packages would mean systematically higher compensation spending elsewhere in the corporate structure. Either more frontline workers or better-paid ones. The new tax code would redistribute value inside the corporate structure without anyone actually paying the new sky-high taxes.
But Zachary Karabell doubts that taxing the bejesus out of CEOs will solve our problems:
The top 100 CEOs in the [NYT's] survey took home a total of $1.5 billion. That’s rather nice for them, but redistributing, say, $1 billion of that would do almost nothing to help the 100 million people at the bottom of the economic pyramid in the U.S.
Ryan Jacobs flags a study that suggests people grow closer to God amidst relationship troubles:
In a new study published in Social Psychological and Personality Science, researchers recently tested how threats to romantic relationships affected people’s intimacy with God. The results suggest that the divine can act as a sort of rebound during moments of romantic desperation or trouble. The researchers exposed mostly religious subjects to psychological exercises that “threatened their romantic relationship” and then asked them about their connection to God. A control group just answered the God questions. Across three experiments, those in the experimental group reported stronger connections or a greater interest in God. The experiments also showed that those under the threatened relationship condition were “more willing to accommodate God’s transgression,” like not answering prayers. The researchers write that the results indicate that there is “considerable overlap between people’s divine and interpersonal relationships.”
Last week, Pew released a study measuring American attitudes toward future technologies. While the majority of respondents expressed significant reservations about most of the tech, Emily Badger is glad that the driverless car was among the most accepted:
Transportation geeks generally love the idea of autonomous cars because they’ll make ownership unnecessary. When cars no longer need people to drive them, they can drive around all day, transporting one passenger after another after another — in a network that might look a lot like personalized public transit. The resulting transportation system would be tremendously efficient. Cars wouldn’t spend the vast majority of their lives parked. We wouldn’t need to devote so much of our land to parking spots. We could get rid of the urban congestion that’s caused purely by people driving around looking for parking. …
Maybe you own a car because you need it, for mobility. But you own that car because you want it for some more intangible reason. In the future, however, the arrival of mass-market autonomous cars will force us to confront the difference between these two ideas. When you no longer need to own a car for mobility, will you still want one anyway for the love of cars, or for what they say about you, or for some other deeply personal reason?
Elsewhere in the study, 65% of respondents felt “it would be a change for the worse if lifelike robots become the primary caregivers for the elderly and people in poor health.” Waldman, on the other hand, welcomes the age of the robo-sponge-bathing:
Noting the widespread use of mobile payments in Africa, Bright Continent author Dayo Olopade thinks through whether similar efforts could succeed in the US. She sees need for the technology because “the poorest 30 percent of Americans were, to use an industry term, underbanked—unable to access credit and financial services within their means”:
Exporting mobile money to the United States, however, entails a slew of challenges that its creators did not face in Africa.
I’m in the home-stretch of the book, Bart Ehrman’s How Jesus Became God, the first selection for the Dish’s resurrected (!) Book Club. I know many readers are, as well. We’ll start the conversation this week – so hold your emails for a bit. I’m going to try and structure debate on the book into some clear, distinct questions, rather than trying to grapple with it all at once.
But as an appetite-whetter and encouragement to finish reading, here are some early reviews. First up, Fr. Robert Barron attacks the core of Ehrman’s thesis – that “explicit statements of Jesus’ divine identity can be found only in the later fourth Gospel of John, whereas the three Synoptic Gospels, earlier and thus presumably more historically reliable, do not feature such statements.” Barron calls this idea “nonsense”:
In Mark’s Gospel, Jesus addresses the crippled man who had been lowered through the roof of Peter’s house, saying, “My son, your sins are forgiven,” to which the bystanders respond, “Who does this man think he is? Only God can forgive sins.” What is implied there is a Christology as high as anything in John’s Gospel.
And affirmations of divinity on the lips of Jesus himself positively abound in the Synoptics. When he says, in Matthew’s Gospel, “He who does not love me more than his mother or father is not worthy of me,” he is implying that he himself is the greatest possible good. When in Luke’s Gospel, he says, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away,” he is identifying himself with the very Word of God. When he says in Matthew’s Gospel, in reference to himself, “But I tell you, something greater than the Temple is here,” he is affirming unambiguously that he is divine, since for first century Jews, only Yahweh himself would be greater than the Jerusalem Temple.
Perhaps most remarkably, when he says, almost as a tossed-off aside at the commencement of the Sermon on the Mount, “You have heard it said, but I say…” he is claiming superiority to the Torah, which was the highest possible authority for first century Jews. But the only one superior to the Torah would be the author of the Torah, namely God himself. Obviously examples such as these from the Synoptic authors could be multiplied indefinitely. The point is that the sharp demarcation between the supposedly “high” Christology of John and the “low” Christology of the Synoptics, upon which the Ehrman thesis depends, is simply wrong-headed.
[W]hile Ehrman insists that there was a continuum between gods and humans in the ancient world, I contend that Jews and Christians held to a strict monotheism that delineated God from the rest of the created order. And when they mapped out where Jesus belonged on this ledger, he was clearly on the God-side – not semi-divine or quasi-divine, but identified with the God of creation and covenant.
And whereas Ehrman thinks that Jesus was a prophet who proclaimed God’s judgment of this world, I argue that the historical Jesus saw himself as proclaiming and even embodying God’s kingship. Jesus believed that, in his own person, Israel’s God was becoming King, which is why Jesus spoke and acted with a sense of unmediated divine authority, why he identified himself with God’s activity in the world, why he believed that in his own person Israel’s God was returning to Zion as the prophets had promised, and why he outrageously claimed that he would sit on God’s own throne.
Meanwhile, Greg Carey criticizes the way some Christians have engaged the book, arguing that “it doesn’t help to dismiss Ehrman for being an agnostic, as if agnostics have nothing to teach Christians about the Bible, Jesus, or faith”:
[T]here is a live conversation among biblical scholars about how most Christians came to regard Jesus as divine. In other words, Ehrman’s book raises questions that should interest us all. This is not about liberals and secularists attacking the church. It’s an ongoing debate that crosses the usual party lines. …
Most Christians, however, have no idea that Ehrman’s book represents a genuine conversation among informed scholars. This is unfortunate. Nothing Ehrman is saying would surprise a biblical scholar at even the most conservative theological school. This knowledge gap constitutes a failure of educational ministry in the churches. We Christians should be learning to engage legitimate public conversations about Jesus, about the Bible, and about our faith. And we should attend to spiritual development that equips us to enter those conversations with humility and love.
I might as well state one core reason I picked this book. I strongly believe that Christians need to absorb all we can about the origins and debates over the texts that have come to form our faith. We should have nothing to be afraid of but the truth.
“I fucking hate my penis,” Molly at The Toast freely admits, reflecting on the “Before Times” of her sex life before beginning the process of sex reassignment surgery:
[A]t no point did sex ever come naturally or easy to me as a man, because I found it really hard to stay erect when with a woman. I sustained almost no pleasure from sex, and if my ex had been the kind of woman to watch Archer she’d have spent a lot of nights telling me I was pushing rope. The thing seemed to be a mystery to me. I was attracted to women (mostly), but it did not react to them in a way that was consistent with that attraction. I started to believe that at some point every other penis-owning humanoid had been given a manual on how to operate their dicks, but mine had been lost in the post. It made me feel like shit, every time it failed me – and it failed me a lot.
Over time me and my ex figured out tricks to make it work, but they were just that – tricks.
Yesterday, on the 15th anniversary of the massacre, the Columbine author explained the lessons we still haven’t learned from it – namely, the dangers associated with overexposing the killers. Along those lines, it’s always worth revisiting Charlie Brooker’s epic video rant about post-shooting news coverage, many tropes of which originated with Columbine. In today’s video, Cullen highlights the biggest misconceptions about Columbine that cable news helped propagate:
In a followup, Cullen addresses the question, “How could the media get the Columbine story so wrong?”
The wonderful magazine, Intelligent Life, is having a symposium. The indispensable Ann Wroe (see her astonishingly good biography of Pontius Pilate) considers the deadliest sin ingratitude, “a sin against charity, which otherwise warms the heart and, in the truest sense, makes the world turn”:
The incidents seem trifling. After the dinner party, no note is sent. (Well, you were busy, and the dinner wasn’t that elaborate.) The solicitous e-mail gets no reply. (Again, you’re busy, and don’t feel like chatting.) A driver gives way to you at a place where there is no clear priority; you don’t acknowledge him. A fellow pedestrian steps into the road for you, or holds a door; you breeze on by. On holiday, you give your smallest and most worthless coins to the woman who has carefully cleaned your room. …
No blood is spilt in any of these cases. Nothing is stolen. No one’s life is ruined. The prick of pain passes soon enough. Yet a tiny seed of ice has been sown, formed of arrogance on one side and, on the other, a sense of worthlessness. That ice spreads, and creeps into the veins and crevices of life: so that on the next occasion the door is not held, the room is cleaned carelessly, the car does not give way and the e-mail is never sent. As the opportunity for kindness is ignored, so the chance of reciprocal kindness, in the form of thanks, never comes to be. What is never given can never be repaid.
I have to say I love that insight. One of the great curses of fundamentalist Christianity is its obsession with sexual sin above all others. I recall the great Malcolm Muggeridge’s line about why lust may be the least un-Christian of the sins: because lust is so often about “give, give, give!” But the small acts of mutual disregard, gracelessness, and distancing from the other – which we all do every day – can be far more corrosive. Passion is more forgivable in my book than indifference.
Will Self thinks pride is worse: “While you can perfectly well be proud without being avaricious, or slothful, or covetous, it’s absolutely impossible to transgress in these ways without first being proud.” But for Richard Holloway, no sin is deadlier than envy:
One of the most popular lines of argument in the Ali apologias is that Brandeis is guilty of applying an outrageous double standard, one that allows for the hateful criticism of Judaism, but not a fair critique of Islam. Bill Kristol complains that while the university refuses to honor Ali, they saw fit to bestow a degree on playwright Tony Kushner in 2006, despite the fact that Kushner had “called the creation of Israel as a Jewish state ‘a mistake’ and attacked Israel for ethnic cleansing.” Andrew Sullivan echoes this complaint, writing in the Dish:
Kushner was challenging his own ethnic group just as powerfully as Hirsi Ali is challenging her own. But here is the question: why is he lionized and Hirsi Ali disinvited? Why are provocative ideas on the “right” less legitimate than provocative ideas on the left?
The irony of this argument is that by equating Kushner’s anti-Zionism with Ali’s condemnation of Islam as a “nihilistic death cult,” Kristol and Sullivan exemplify a double standard exactly opposite to the one they allege.
Whatever one’s opinion on the necessity of a Jewish state, it is a fact that a portion of the Jewish community has been opposed to state Zionism for centuries. Whatever one’s feelings on Israel, it is a fact — confirmed even in the work of Zionist historians like Benny Morris – that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were forced from their homes by Israeli soldiers in 1948. Thus Kushner’s statements align him with a minority position in the Jewish community, and assert a historical fact.
Ali’s statements assert that no form of Islam deserves our tolerance, because inherent to the religion is a violent fascism that must be defeated. Kushner asks Jews to question the violence required to establish and maintain a majority Jewish state, in a region densely populated by Palestinians. Ali asks the U.S. government to declare war on the Muslim faith. Her “provocative” ideas aren’t less legitimate because they come from the right. They’re less legitimate because they assert that every “true” follower of Islam subscribes to an ideology of terror.
I have not seen where Hirsi Ali has called on the US government to declare war on Islam – since that would obviously require suspension of the First Amendment. Her crude rhetoric against the religion is, I’d say, of a piece with much of the new atheists’ contempt, with a unique, female edge. Would Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris have an honorary degree retroactively revoked and only allowed to speak on campus if rebutted in the same forum? Levitz also specifically calls me out here:
Curiously, not one of the pieces protesting Brandeis’ decision actually quotes Ali’s past rhetoric. Instead, they refer obliquely to her “stinging attacks on non-Western religions,” “provocative ideas” or, most opaquely, her “life and thought.” The simplest explanation for this chronic omission is that to actually engage with Ali’s rhetoric would be to expose the absurdity of the Judeo-Christian persecution complex that informs so much of the genre.
I really don’t think I can be accused of harboring a Judeo-Christian persecution complex. And, of course, the Dish ran a number of dissents that highlighted Ali’s most reprehensible rhetoric. Since I’ve been careful over the years to distinguish between Islamism, modern Islamist fundamentalism, and the entire civilization and history of Islam over the centuries, I understand why Ayaan’s rhetoric – especially in one critical interview – can be seen as over-the-top. This piece by Ira Stoll is as good a defense of Brandeis as I have read.
I’d just proffer the notion in response that if you had been genitally mutilated and nearly forced into an arranged marriage … you might get a little over-the-top as well. When you’ve had a death threat attached to a knife in the corpse of your film-making partner, I think you get something of a pass for being over-the-top at times. And usually, a woman who had endured such trials would gain a sympathetic audience in a university campus.
Meanwhile, Freddie deBoer, reflecting on the Eich and #CancelColbert affairs and others, scrutinizes the hard left:
General Mills found itself in a PR nightmare last week when word got out of its new policy that essentially prevents customers from suing the company if they had downloaded a coupon, subscribed to an e-mail newsletter, or taken advantage of a promotional offer:
In other words: It just became nearly impossible to get a deal on a General Mills product without forfeiting your rights to sue the company. Even if your kid with a peanut allergy eats a Fiber One bar with trace amounts of peanuts and gets sick. For this reason, the Times reports that the new terms could come under strict legal scrutiny.
The outcry quickly forced the corporation to back down, but Leah Libresco points out that these policies are becoming more common, even though they’re often illegal:
The agreement signed last week to restore calm in eastern Ukraine quickly unraveled over the weekend, with clashes at a checkpoint in Slovyansk on Sunday that left three pro-Russian separatists dead:
The Russian Foreign Ministry quickly seized on the Easter Sunday clash as evidence that the new Ukrainian government could not keep order. The new mayor of Slovyansk, meanwhile, begged Russian President Vladimir Putin to send “peacekeepers” to protect the people. Ukraine’s leaders fear that Putin is looking for any excuse to take more direct action in the nation’s east, where many residents speak Russian and distrust the central authorities in Kiev. The Security Service of Ukraine called Sunday’s attack a “cynical provocation” staged by pro-Russia elements.
Daniel Berman thinks the Kremlin is looking to sink the agreement:
So why sign an agreement and then immediately torpedo it? Well, perhaps the Kremlin wants to “demonstrate” to the West that they do not control the separatists, and that the West will have to meet their minimum demands in order to gain a lasting cease-fire. Hitherto Kiev, Brussels, and Washington have tried to deal through Moscow on the assumption that Putin, because he had turned on the faucet of unrest could also turn it off.
In what way have dogs and cats moved beyond the status of property?
They can inherit money, for one thing. And since property cannot inherit property, that makes them different. Legal scholars say that is the biggest change. About 25 states have adopted the Uniform Trust Code, which allows animals to inherit. Also judges have granted owners of slain animals awards of emotional damages. You cannot get emotional damages from the loss of a toaster. In 2004 a California jury awarded a man named Marc Bluestone $39,000 for the loss of his dog Shane; $30,000 of that was for Shane’s special and unique value to Bluestone.
But why is that a problem for biomedical researchers?
I still cannot understand how the advocates of Obamacare have failed to use one of the strongest conservative arguments for the program: the elimination of one of the principal roadblocks that innovative Americans face in starting their own businesses.
My wife is an instructive example. She’s a medical writer who edits journal articles and consults on New Drug Applications for experimental new drugs. She’s been the project lead for the approval of several new drugs that you’ve probably heard of. When she went into business for herself at age 45, you couldn’t have named a better example of the can-do spirit that the GOP claims to support.
But she has high blood pressure and a child with autism. Neither of these conditions has had any significant effect on our healthcare costs, but BOTH of them are considered pre-existing conditions. Without the healthcare coverage I have from my full-time job, she literally could not have obtained coverage at all. This isn’t idle speculation on my part; I considered starting a full-time business of my own a few years ago but found that it was simply impossible to obtain insurance.
Why on earth isn’t there some Democrat somewhere shouting this pro-business message from the rooftops?
Several more readers share their stories:
I just read your piece on the meep meep that is Obamacare and I am surprised that I haven’t heard more about how it is helping small business owners like the two of us.