That’s not to say that a corporation (or a government) can never borrow the wrong amount. A company can expose itself to excessive bankruptcy risk by overleveraging. Or if it’s not leveraged enough, it may be paying too much for capital. Similarly, government deficits do matter — they just don’t always matter such that smaller is better."
— Josh Barro addressing one of my pet peeves.
How can this be? If Christian numbers are exploding, how can they be left so far behind Muslims in the rate of expansion? The answer lies in differential demographics, namely that some parts of the world are growing much faster than others. Islam grew so mightily because Muslims were so heavily concentrated in those regions that maintained very high fertility rates throughout the twentieth century, chiefly in Africa and Asia. A rising tide lifts all faiths.
In contrast, overall Christian numbers lagged because that faith was traditionally concentrated in Europe, and Europe’s demographic growth has been very slow in comparison with other parts of the globe. Back in 1900, Europeans made up around a quarter of the world’s population, but by 2050, that number will probably be closer to eight percent. In 1900, there were three Europeans for every African. By 2050, there should be three Africans for every European. If we take Europe out of the picture, then, Islam and Christianity have been running a very close race worldwide, but Christians find it hard to overcome that demographic handicap.
When I am asked about the world’s fastest growing religion, then, I answer unequivocally: Islam. Or, Christianity outside Europe."
Professor Autor’s own explanation builds on existing research showing that income inequality has soared, stretching the gap between rich and poor, and that a smaller share of Americans are making the climb. The children of lower-income parents are ever more likely to become, in turn, the parents of lower-income children.
Moreover, a growing share of lower-income children are raised by their mother but not their father, and research shows that those children are at a particular disadvantage.
Professor Autor said in an interview that he was intrigued by evidence suggesting the consequences were larger for boys than girls, including one study finding that single mothers spent an hour less per week with their sons than their daughters. Another study of households where the father had less education, or was absent entirely, found the female children were 10 to 14 percent more likely to complete college. A third study of single-parent homes found boys were less likely than girls to enroll in college.
“It’s very clear that kids from single-parent households fare worse in terms of years of education,” he said. “The gender difference, the idea that boys do even worse again, is less clear cut. We’re pointing this out as an important hypothesis that needs further exploration. But there’s intriguing evidence in that direction.”"
It’s promising this comes from a left of center think tank.
— Netflix has a program designed to randomly crash servers. This is so dope.
Darby swore at Krohn, accusing him of feigning outrage.
“Brother, listen to me,” Darby said. “Let me explain something: You’re 18. This type of loud angry display is why people gather around you.”
There was more shouting, including by Krohn.
“Don’t yell in my face,” Darby said. “Man, if we were outside and you were yelling at me like that, we would have an issue. Don’t talk to me like that. I’m trying to talk to you calmly.”
When Weinstein tried again to persuade them lay off of Krohn, Palvich turned to him and said, “I think it’s sad as a journalist that you think asking questions is confrontational. Maybe you should get another job.”
Leah Sargent, an editor for the website MisfitPolitics.com, chimed in from the side of the group. “Why are you being so defensive?” she asked Krohn, in the same way an older brother would ask why you keep hitting yourself. “You know what? I hope that in the next five years you keep reading and you actually get yourself an education. I would like to recommend ‘Atlas Shrugged’ to you.” She and some of the others began to walk away, but then she turned back around. “Also, if you want to be taken seriously, tuck in your shirt.”
(Later, when talking to a group of friends about the incident, Sargent said, “I just want everyone to applaud my self-control for not slapping that stupid brat.”)"
I was a much less gifted, anonymous version of Krohn as a teen. There’s something about so wholly embracing certitudes at such a young age that makes you averse to easy definitions for the rest of your life. (Unless you pull a 180 and embrace the other side just as fiercely.) And yes, conservative ideologues can be classless jerks of the first order when the sanctity of their worldview is threatened by apostasy.
Chivalry represented resistance to this clericalism: “the elaboration of the notion of chivalry was … an attempt to elaborate a lay theology… . This lay theology resisted an unintelligent clerical squeamishness about sex: as the Roman de la Rose asks, if clerical chastity is the ‘highest’ path and yet grace is offered to all, how is this consistent with God’s approval of nature and generation? Only the Olympian gods, the authors of this work argue, were jealous of the human physical bliss of the Golden Age: such an attitude is alien to the God of creation and grace, and therefore sexual puritanism is pagan and not Christian.”
Chivalry also resisted “clerical preciosity concerning conflict… . if clerical nonviolence is ‘the highest,’ then fighting a just war would imperil one’s salvation, at least to some degree. If some wars are just, they lie therefore within the scope of providence, and such impairment therefore seems inconsistent with divine justice and grace.”"
— Chivalrous Sex at First Things
— W. H. Auden, Secondary Worlds (1967). Thanks to my friend and colleague Richard Gibson for reminding me of this great passage which I should never have forgotten in the first place. (via ayjay)
This is the same Catch-22 that’s killing the post office: conservative lawmakers criticize a public enterprise as unprofitable while imposing rules and service obligations (to the benefit of their constituents) that make it impossible to turn a profit.