Stay Awake with MLKJr

One of the great liabilities of history is that all too many people fail to remain awake through great periods of social change. Every society has its protectors of the status quo and its fraternities of the indifferent who are notorious for sleeping through revolutions. But today our very survival depends on our ability to stay awake, to adjust to new ideas, to remain vigilant and to face the challenge of change. The large house in which we live demands that we transform this world-wide neighborhood into a world-wide brotherhood. Together we must learn to live as brothers or together we will be forced to perish as fools. --Martin Luther King Jr., "The world house," in Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? (Harper & Row, 1967). umn.edu. Retrieved May 30, 2016.

 

It is time for you to wake up. - Romans 13:11

Waking Up with Alarm Clocks

"It is time for you to wake up" says Paul in Romans 13:11.

 

I do not remember a time what it was hard for me to get up in the morning. If I have no reason to get up early, I will usually awaken around 5 or 6, especially if we are in the part of the year when the sun rises early. I like being up before others in the house. I like the quiet. I usually spend some time in personal reflection and prayer.

I guess roosters have internal clocks that tell them to crow as the sun rises. As I understand it, some humans might like to have an internal clock that makes them rise. They find it hard to arise in the morning. They can hit the five minute snooze button several times. On Sunday morning, I arise around 4 AM. I do need an alarm for that. The alarm is gentle. Many times, I am awake a few minutes before it gently awakens me. Such an alarm would not work for the person who hits the snooze button several times.

If you hit snooze, you may lose (productivity, that is).

When you doze off after your alarm wakes you in the morning, you are actually setting yourself up to feel less alert and productive later in the day.[1]

Here is the way Robert S. Rosenberg, medical director of the Sleep Disorders Centers of Prescott Valley and Flagstaff, Arizona puts it. 

"When you hit the snooze button repeatedly, you're doing two negative things to yourself.

"First, you're fragmenting what little extra sleep you're getting so it is of poor quality. Second, you're starting to put yourself through a new sleep cycle that you aren't giving yourself enough time to finish. This can result in persistent grogginess throughout the day."

 Scientists have identified the culprit behind this stupor that is brought on by a too-brief slumber: sleep inertia. The National Sleep Foundation defines this state as "the feeling of grogginess and disorientation that can come from awakening from a deep sleep."

 It slows down your decision-making abilities, impairs your memory and hurts your general performance once you do get out of bed. Even worse, coffee and a cold shower cannot combat it: It can take up to an hour and a half to shake off sleep-inertia grogginess.

 According to Rosenberg, that is because the snooze button messes with your brain hormones. "You're throwing off your circadian cycle," he says. Disrupting the circadian cycle can impair your ability to feel awake during the day and sleepy at night.

So, is banishing the snooze button enough to make you feel your best during the day? Nope, says Rosenberg. The urge to sleep a bit longer is really a symptom of a larger problem.

Some inventors have help for you if you find it hard to get up in the morning.[2]  

+ The Puzzle Alarm Clock: You might remember that old game "Perfection" where you had to put various shapes in their corresponding slots on a grid before a timer went off and a spring shot all the pieces into the air? Okay, imagine that as an alarm clock where three different puzzle shapes shoot out of the clock, and it blares until you get up and put them in the right slot. There's nothing that says "wake up" like having to use one's cognitive and motor skills instantly and urgently first thing in the morning!  

+ The Laser Target Alarm Clock: This one adds sharpshooting skills to your morning routine. When the alarm clicks on, you have to aim a laser beam directly at its center to turn it off. Perfect for Star Wars fans, it's the morning equivalent of Han Solo blasting Greedo in the Mos Eisley Cantina! 

+ The Flying Alarm Clock: If you like Harry Potter, you will like this. It puts you in the middle of a Quidditch match every morning. The clock itself actually launches out of its base like a Snitch and forces you to catch it in midair and return it to the base in order to shut off the alarm. No word on how many points one earns for this feat. 

+ The Wake and Shake Alarm Clock: This one features a pad that goes under your pillow. When it goes off, it shrieks with a sound that's literally only 5 decibels short of a jackhammer, vibrates under your head, and fires off a flashing strobe light. Actually, "Wake and Shake" seems a little understated in this case. 

+ Clocky: This is for you snoozers. If you hit the snooze button on this innocent looking clock, it uses its attached wheels to launch itself off the nightstand and rolls around the room looking for a place to hide, whereupon it will blare its alarm again and make you get up to find it. After all, who doesn't like an intense game of hide-and-seek before one's morning coffee? 

            If one of these alarms sounds like something you need, you are probably not a morning person.

---

[1]  --Erinn Bucklan, "Is the snooze button bad for you?" cnn.com, February 7, 2014. Retrieved June 4, 2016. 

[2] Jsimard. "Top 5 annoying alarm clocks." Aluratek Website. December 2, 2010. aluratek.com. Retrieved May 13, 2016.

Good From Evil and 21 Coptic Martyrs

Anyone who believes in the providence of God must also affirm that God is able to make good out of evil. This does not mean, of course, that all things are good. This would be to deny that evil exists. Rather, we simply acknowledge that God is able to use the awful things that happen in this world to bring about a good result.

I remember vividly the first time I heard about the 21 Coptic Christians killed in Libya by Islamic terrorists. I know enough about human history to know we are capable of doing horrendous things to each other. However, to see that picture of these human beings lined up for their slaughter generated empathy for them and anger at the terrorists.

It was early in 2015. Coptic Christians are the largest Christian community in the Middle East. It remains one of the oldest continuous branches of Christianity in the world. They trace their church back to Saint Mark, who introduced Christianity in Alexandria, Egypt, just a few years after the death and resurrection of Jesus.

The terrorists took these Coptic Christians hostage and executed them because of their faith in Jesus Christ. The Islamic State, also known as ISIS, released a video of the killings titled, "A Message Signed with Blood to the Nations of the Cross." ISIS clearly wanted to send a message to Christians around the world, to residents of what they call "the Nations of the Cross."

However, like the people who killed Jesus, they did not know what they were doing. Instead of weakening the Christian faith, they strengthened it.

The 21 men who were murdered were working on a construction job as tradesmen. All were Egyptians except for one. He appears to have been a young African man, perhaps from Chad or Ghana. A Greek Orthodox bishop said that the executioners demanded that each hostage identify his religion. Under threat of death, they could have denied that they were Christians. Instead, each of the Christians declared their trust in Jesus. Maintaining their faith in the face of evil, the terrorists beheaded each man. The Coptic Church also has a Pope at its head, and he named these persons as martyrs and saints in the church, commemorating the date of their execution as their feast day. Pope Francis, soon after their execution, offered these words: 

“ [T]he blood of our Christian brothers and sisters is a testimony which cries out to be heard… It makes no difference whether they be Catholics, Orthodox, Copts or Protestants. They are Christians! Their blood is one and the same. Their blood confesses Christ. This is not to minimise differences, nor to turn a blind eye to them. However, in dying for Christ do such divisions among Christians retain real relevance? In dying for Christ one has become the perfect disciple, and enters a real communion with Christ’s Body in heaven. ” 

The bishop, named Demetrios of Mokissos, describes this crime as "a grotesque example of the violence Christians face daily in Libya, Iraq, Syria and anywhere that ISIS prosecutes its murderous campaign against anyone it deems an infidel." Nevertheless, as horrible as these executions were, the story has an unexpected and inspirational ending.

The young African man who was with the Egyptians was not a Christian when they captured him. However, when the ISIS terrorists challenged him to declare his faith, he replied: "Their God is my God."

What a statement! "Their God is my God."

After hearing those words, the terrorists killed him. Nevertheless, in that moment, the young man became a Christian. Jesus said to him, as he said to the man on the next cross, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise" (v. 43).

Bishop Demetrios concludes,  

"The ISIS murderers seek to demoralize Christians with acts like the slaughter on a Libyan beach. Instead they stir our wonder at the courage and devotion inspired by God's love."  

The terrorists who killed that young man did not know what they were doing. 

A year later, another Bishop Amba Angaelos, General Bishop of the Coptic Orthodox Church, offered these words: 

"These men paid the ultimate price, but gave us a cause to advocate for all those persecuted; they also showed us that there was a level of evil that we must all stand in solidarity against, and a level of courage, faithfulness and defiance that we must all aspire to."[1]

---

[1] Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/christians-worldwide-mark-anniversary-21-beheaded-copts-isis-video-message-nation-of-the-cross-157923/#UmiKUHD8vTWlXLYY.99

 

Considering Utopia

“I abhor the idea of a perfect world. It would bore me to tears,” said Shelby Foote. Some of us might think that way.

Leibniz, a great philosopher, made the argument that this world is the best of all possible worlds. That thought discourages some of us.

On the other hand, some of us like to let our minds wander.

“It sure would be nice” … You can fill in the rest. Most of us can daydream a bit about how the world, or at least our part of the world, would be better if certain things fell into place. If you get into dreaming big, we call it “Utopia.” Such a vision might inspire us to act.

According to Google, there are only seven communities worldwide named "Utopia," and six of them are in the United States. Actually, though, that statement is misleading. The Utopia in Kansas is now a ghost town, and larger communities with other names have subsumed the ones in Florida, New York and Illinois. A few people live in what was Utopia, Ohio, but the community by that name is now a historical memory. Utopia, Texas, is still there, although with a population of less than 250. The one not in the United States is in New South Wales, Australia, and it seems to be little more than a spot on the map.

It is perhaps significant that no utopias have really thrived. Sir Thomas More coined the word “utopia” in 1516. He used it as the name of a fictional island society in a novel he published with a long Latin title that translates On the Best State of a Republic and on the New Island of Utopia. His book depicted a communal society where the citizens shared everything in a way that everyone benefitted. To name the island, More combined two Greek words, topos, which means "place" or "where," and u or ou, which means "no" or "not," giving a literal meaning of "nowhere" or "not-place."

His book was a sly criticism of the European society of his day. Among More's targets were the abuse of the royal prerogative and land enclosure practices that worked against the common good, both of which were major societal problems in 16th-century England. In More's book, they were in contrast to the uncomplicated society of the Utopians. They worked six hours a day, beginning the day with three hours of lectures. He envisioned no private property. Leaders commit themselves to peace rather than war. The people do not focus on things like jewels and wealth. There were no lawyers. Religions respected their differences while recognizing what united them.

Today, in keeping with More's original meaning, utopia denotes an imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect. In fact, synonyms for utopia include "paradise," "Shangri-La," "nirvana" and "heaven on earth." Most of us would conclude that such a place or society is not achievable among humankind. The etymology of the word -- literally meaning "nowhere" or "not-place" -- tells the whole story. As one person put it, utopia "is nice to think about, but on this earth, you're not going to find it -- because wherever and whenever a human being enters a paradise, paradise is lost." Or, as someone else has said, "Abandon all hope of utopia -- there are people involved."

Nevertheless, in the decades preceding the Civil War, a certain idealism among some people led to the founding of communities called Utopia because the founders were intent on trying to create societies as close to perfect as they could. For example, the followers of French philosopher Charles Fourier in 1844 established Ohio's Utopia. He called for "intentional communities" based on equal sharing of resources and labor. The people who came to that Utopia were spiritualists who wanted a secluded area to practice their religion. The town was on the banks of the Ohio River, and unfortunately, many of its settlers died in a flash flood in 1847. Most of the survivors moved away. There are people living in the area today, but they are not communalists and the town, as such, is relegated to a roadside marker placed by the Ohio Historical Society. After telling of the flood and the deaths, the marker includes this sentence: "Thus, the idea of the perfect society, or utopia, died."

My point here, though, is that such a dream of a better place, even a perfect place, can inspire people to change their lives in accord with that vision. One writer put it this way.  

Utopia is on the horizon. I move two steps closer; it moves two steps further away. I walk another 10 steps and the horizon runs 10 steps further away. As much as I may walk, I'll never reach it.

 So what's the point of utopia?

 The point is this: to keep walking.

 --Eduardo Galeano.

Veterans Day Reflection

Veterans Day is an annual holiday in the United States honoring veterans of the armed forces and the men and women killed in the country's wars. The observance originated as Armistice Day, which the United States, Great Britain, and France set aside to commemorate the ending of World War I (Nov. 11, 1918). After World War II, countries continued to recognize it as a day of tribute to the veterans and the dead of that conflict as well. Canada knows it as Remembrance Day, Great Britain proclaimed the Sunday nearest November 11 as Remembrance Sunday honoring the dead of both World Wars. In 1954, after the Korean War, the United States officially designated the date as Veterans Day to honor service members of all U.S. wars. 

            According to the statistics I have seen, there are 23 million living veterans, 48 million Americans have served since 1776, and nearly one million died in combat or combat related events. War has terrible consequences. The reality of war is different -- it is ugly, it is deadly, and unfortunately, sometimes it is unavoidable. When it is unavoidable, we are lucky to have men and women who are willing to serve our country and make the ultimate sacrifice, if necessary. We are a nation born out of war. We declared ourselves independent from the British in 1776. It took us eight years to earn our independence from the British through the American Revolutionary War.

            I am not sure who said it, but a well-known quote is that a Veteran is someone, who at one point in their life, wrote a blank check payable to the United States of America for an amount up to, and including their life.

            In the United Methodist Church, a resolution first adopted in 2000, and reaffirmed in 2004 and 2008, that the UMC honors, supports, and upholds in our prayers those men and women who serve in our armed services. ...  It also urges that local churches “extend a welcome home to persons who return from service in the armed forces to respect their stories and interpretations of their experiences, and to value and encourage expression of their potential contributions to the ministry of our churches.” It also encourages members “to pray for persons serving in the armed forces and their families, to pray for persons whom circumstances have caused us to relate to as enemies, to pray for other persons for whom war has caused suffering, and to pray for peace.” 

            Veterans Day is usually observed with parades, speeches, and floral tributes placed on graves or memorials of those who served. In the United States, group naturalization ceremonies have come to be an important part of the day's activities. 

            Special Veterans Day services are held at Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington, Va., and at similar shrines in other countries. Churches observe two minutes of silence. In 1921, the body of an unknown American soldier was moved from France to be buried in the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery in Washington, DC. The tomb honored all American soldiers who died fighting in the war. Two more unidentified American war dead were buried at Arlington in 1958. One was killed in WWII and the other in the Korean Warn. Then, in 1984, a body from the Vietnam War was brought to join the other unknowns. The 3rd US Infantry, the Army/s honor guard, keeps a constant vigil over the tomb and it is a tradition for the president to lay a wreath at the tomb each Veterans Day. 

 

Veteran Facts 2014

There are approximately 23.2 million military veterans in the United States.

48 million Americans have served since 1776 

Nearly one million died in combat or combat related events 

•9.2 million veterans are over the age of 65.

•1.9 million veterans are under the age of 35.

•1.8 million veterans are women.

•2.6 million veterans served during World War II (1941-1945).

•2.8 million veterans served during the Korean War (1950-1953).

•7.8 million veterans served during the Vietnam War era (1964-1975), which represents 33% of all living veterans.

•5.2 million veterans served during the Gulf War (representing service from Aug. 2, 1990, to present).

•6 million veterans served in peacetime.

•As of 2008, 2.9 million veterans received compensation for service-connected disabilities.

•5 states have more than 1 million veterans in among their population: California (2.1 million), Florida (1.7 million), Texas (1.7 million), New York (1 million) and Pennsylvania (1 million).

•The VA health care system had 54 hospitals in 1930, since then it has expanded to include 171 medical centers; more than 350 outpatient, community, and outreach clinics; 126 nursing home care units; and 35 live-in care facilities for injured or disabled vets. Abraham Lincoln made a promise to veterans in his Second Inaugural Address in 1865, when he promised that America would “…care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan.”  That promise is VA’s motto.

 

            The All-Volunteer Force in place in the U.S. today relies on men and women to step up and volunteer.  Without volunteers, the system would cease to function, and the U.S. would have to rely on a conscription service, denying young men and women the choice of whether they serve in the military.  When choosing to volunteer, service members do much more than march off to war to be a hero.  They give up personal autonomy on where they live.  They sacrifice holidays, birthdays, and family milestones for the greater good.  They postpone educational pursuits and professional careers.  They strain relationships, push loved ones to the breaking point, and leave memories behind every few years as their lives are upheaved and moved again.  They forego personal passions and hobbies for the long hours necessary to ensure that the United States has the most professional and successful fighting force on the planet.  And they have all volunteered willingly to do all of this.  Less than 1% of the population of the U.S. serves in the military.  So, for every 1 of us who serves, more than 100 do not have to.

 

Thank a veteran that you knew you would be present for the birth of all your children.

Thank a veteran that you have pursued your educational goals safely and uninterrupted.

Thank a veteran that your biggest stress is not getting to your training ride, workout, spin class, yoga, pilates, or run in for the day.

Thank a veteran that you can sit home nights and write.

Thank a veteran that you have pursued a successful professional career and living the high life.

Thank a veteran that you have the security to be a stay-at-home parent.

Thank a veteran that you have chosen to make your home close to your, or far from your family, close to the ocean or deep in the mountain… but you choose it.

Thank a veteran that you were able to attend every one of your child’s sporting events, music recitals, spelling bees and parent-teacher conferences.

Thank a veteran that your spouse or partner comes home predictably every day.

Thank a veteran that you have your weekends free.

Thank a veteran that you pursued your passion as an actor, pastor, professional athlete, model, musician, under water basket weaver, or whatever you chose to do.

Presidential Election 2016-November

I offer a few reflections that are my attempt to process the election. I started these reflections before its results. My goal here is to offer a space of calm reflection. I realize that some have deep-seated fear and anxiety regarding the outcome of a President-elect Donald Trump. I will not re-litigate the election. I want to see if we can listen to the voters. Since the election has not ended on election day, I am extending my remarks.

Victor Davis Hanson offers his reflections on the mythologies of the 2016 election. Newt Gingrich offers his interpretation of Trumpism. Hoover Institute had a discussion of the relationship between conservative intellectuals and Donald Trump. It also had a discussion with Kellyanne Conway, the first female to head a presidential election.

Regardless of our thoughts about Trump, it masks the depth of the defeat experienced by the Democrat Party. As we shall see, Republican victories in the 50 states reveals that the Democrat Party has largely become a metropolitan party. A Hillary victory would have masked the depth of the defeat. Now, we see it clearly.

As I write, some people have taken to the street to protest. The protests arise from a view of Trump typified by a theology professor at Princeton, who posted a 1922 news piece in which the writer suggested that Hitler was not serious about his anti-Semitism. If you have such a view, if it corresponded to reality, would stimulate even such a political conservative as me to demonstrate against, although never with violence. I do not want to add fuel to that fire. Rather than increasing fear, anxiety, and anger, as this theology professor seems to want to do, I want to help people calm down. Thus, the reaction of demonstrating with violence, of beating up people who did not vote your way, concerns me.

An attempt to discredit the results of this election persists.

One approach is to focus on the popular vote. I briefly say here that the rules of the election were known to all. We have 51 elections occurring at the same time. We do so for practical and historical reasons that we learned in sixth grade. Where Hillary and Donald went head-to-head in terms of their personal presence, Donald won.

As I write, Jill Stein failed in what assume was her objective to turn some states from Trump to Hillary after a recount. So far, Trump has gained votes in Wisconsin and they discovered voter fraud in Detroit which would decrease the number of Hillary votes. In my view, this is part of the Liberal-Progressive attempt to discredit the election results.

As I write, the next step in discrediting the election is to focus on Russian hacking. I have no problem with studying any Russian attempts to influence the election. If there were attempts, we need to know about them. The motive of those pursuing this line of attack seem obvious to me. They also mask the content of the revealed emails from John Podesta. If you will think logically for a moment, these emails revealed that the fix was in within the Democrat Party primary to make sure that Hillary won. In reality, Bernie never had a chance. As to the source, is it more likely that a disgruntled Democrat who simply wanted a fair nomination process leaked these emails or is it more likely the Russians did it?

The next step in discrediting the election is the attempt to get electors on December 19 to change their votes. There are often faithless electors who vote a different way than their state directed them. At this point, I know of one from Texas. I do not expect this attempt to succeed.

I might as well say it. Losing builds character. It takes an adult and mature approach to the world to accept defeat graciously and learn what one can from it. Maybe some people, in the age of everyone getting a trophy, have delayed losing until too late in life. Losing happens. The mature response is to listen to those to whom you lost. Such a response requires some spiritual maturity and a prayerful approach to life and fellow citizens. The response of violence to those with whom you disagree and burning the flag are typical responses of Leftist totalitarians in other countries. The response of blaming someone other than oneself for a loss is not the path to learning. People who disagree with the outcome of this election need to pause, calm down, listen to what their fellow citizens are really saying, and learn. However, David Harsanyi has an excellent reflection that the Democrat-Liberal-Progressive never loses an election. If so, they will refuse to lean anything from the depth of their defeat.

Another thing happening as I write a few days after the election is the peaceful transition of power. Hillary has urged people to give the President-elect a chance. President Obama has met with him and was quite gracious. I realize the picture during the election was that he was a racist and misogynist. During the election, people made much of certain KKK fears. Finally, President-elect Trump gave such persons plenty of ammunition for such accusations in his words. I do not defend his behavior or his words. I just ask a question. Would Hillary and President Obama be so gracious if they really believed the worst things said about President-elect Trump? Would they willingly offer a peaceful transition of power to someone who was the racist and misogynist many came to believe President-elect Trump was? In happier times, the Clintons and Trumps were friendly enough to attend the same parties in NYC. Trump had given money to her campaign. As I will share in a moment, I do not defend Trump. I do want to urge people who have such fears to step back and look at what is happening. If Hillary and President Obama can be gracious in defeat, maybe others can be as well. At least, one can keep their fears and anger at bay, wait and see how the President-elect actually governs, and if necessary, give birth to new political opposition. That is the democratic process at work.

A good reminder, given the bitter nature of the campaign, comes from John Wesley.
“October 6, 1774
I met those of our society who had votes in the ensuing election, and advised them
1. To vote, without fee or reward, for the person they judged most worthy
2. To speak no evil of the person they voted against, and
3. To take care their spirits were not sharpened against those that voted on the other side.”

A possible timely word to those tempted to respond with anger toward those who voted differently than you might have liked. Mat 5:44-5 Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven ... Rom 8:17-18 Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.

As I said, I have had a need to process this election. Thus, I want to express to myself and to a potential reader why this election has caused so much disturbance for me.  After all, I did not like Trump before the election. His speculations about the birth certificate were a deal breaker for me. When he announced his candidacy, he said and did things that I thought would eliminate from the crowded Republican field of candidates. As a political conservative in the mold of William F. Buckley and George Will, I have not had anyone whom I could support with joy in the general election. I felt homeless politically in my country before. I have felt homeless politically this year because of the candidates nominated on both sides. I voted early and privately with my wife, which was for me a way to get the duty out of the way.

From a Christian view of the providence of God, we can have faith or trust that God will work through it all to bring glory to God. As Paul in Romans 8:28 put it, God causes all things to work together for the purposes of God. I have learning how anxiety is often a symbol of our lack of control. I have been learning a lesson in what it means trust God as the future remains unknown. Trust in God in the way seems toward the goal seems winding and full of detours is difficult. If you trust in the progressive or conservative political ideology, you have placed your trust in the wrong place. In a democracy, an important part of elections is at least try to take off your ideological glasses, look at your opponent, and listen to what their votes actually say rather than what your ideology says they meant.

One thing we often forget, though, is that God may act in judgment upon this nation. The Bible also gives us many examples of deeply flawed individuals through whom God worked. One thinks of Samson and King David.

I would now like to start the process of listening to the voters.

I want to listen to the struggle within the Republican Party. The battle between "Establishment" and "Nationalist/Populist" in the Republican Party is real. Even with Republicans to some degree controlling the agenda in Washington, the Party is divided. The talk radio of which I write used to have commitment to conservative ideas of governance. Many have abandoned that notion in favor of Trump. The anger at those they consider Establishment Republicans is intense. This creates an interesting dynamic, for the people have kept establishment Republican politicians in power while electing an anti-Establishment President. It will be interesting how these people work it out. They have some common ground in policies, but also many in which they differ. Free Trade, secure borders, and foreign military involvements are among the differences within the party right now. Here is a place where those with conservative political ideas need to listen. At the presidential level, after all, political conservatives lost in this election in a big way. I have been for free trade, and still am, but I am willing to listen to some new ideas. I think it makes sense to secure the border, to provide work visas, to speed the immigration process, and provide a path citizenship, but such a position in the Trump vision seems out of place. I think reform of entitlements is essential to getting the budget under control, something Donald says is off the table. 

I have much to learn at my advanced age (65). I am happy that I do not have to put up with another Clinton and the corruption they bring. I am not happy with the election of Donald. I am happy with the election of the House and surprised-happy with the election in the Senate. For those fearful of Trump, I would remind you that many Republicans share the concern! I do not believe that Republicans will simply tow the Trump line. I believe they will provide a check on some of the more outlandish things he has proposed.

In fact, here is a reminder of the checks and balances of our system. The President is not a dictator. We are a nation of laws. We have government workers, the Congress, and the Supreme Court who would hinder any President from doing the worst that opponents fear. Slate has a long article that I hope can calm down the reader anxious about such matters.

I found an article by George Will just before the election to be helpful in asking the right questions as to what voters were actually saying in this election. The numbers below are readily available on the Internet. They depend on the accuracy of exit polls. An article by Karl Rove also helped with the data.

George Will says that in the 17 elections since World War II, the winner has averaged 385.4 electoral votes, the loser 145.1. My prediction was that this election would end close to that total, with Hillary the winner. I went to bed early, my wife staying up until 2 AM, assuming that Hillary would be the next President.- I have never been so wrong about an election. I honestly thought that with the last week, it looked as if some of the trends toward Trump had stopped. It looks as if Trump will receive 306 electoral votes with about 48% of those who voted. This is the fifth time in history that the winner of the Electoral College also lost the popular vote. It is the 14th time that the winner didn’t receive 50% of ballots. This is a good reminder - 52% of the electorate did want either candidate the Democrat and Republican Party put up for election this year! It is also a good reminder that the electoral college still serves its purpose. Some deep blue states have large populations and go so solidly for the Democrat that two states, NY and CA, would largely run the country. This would not be healthy. It is also much harder to rig the election when we have 51 separate elections rather than just one. Charles Blahous offers that the electoral college is a moderating influence upon American elections According to one article, about 57 percent of eligible voters cast ballots this year, down from 58.6 percent in 2012 and 61.6 percent in 2008, which was the highest mark in 40 years. Turnout still remained well above levels for most presidential election years from 1972 to 2000. The drop in turnout was uneven. On average, turnout was unchanged in states that voted for Trump, while it fell by an average of 2.3 percentage points in states that voted for Clinton. Relatedly, turnout was higher in competitive states.

Will also says that Republican nominees’ popular-vote totals this century are: 2000 (George W. Bush) 50,455,156 (47.9%); 2004 (Bush) 62,040,610 (50.7%); 2008 (John McCain) 59,934,814 (45.7%); 2012 ( Mitt Romney) 60,932,152 (47.2%). Measure Trump’s total accordingly, bearing in mind that there are 10 million more eligible voters in 2016 than in 2012 and nearly 20 million more than in 2008. - So far, Trump has 61.9 million (46.5%). If Will was thinking that Trump would drop below the Romney totals, it appears he was wrong. These totals make me wonder if many people stayed home. I can only speculate as to why they did. In this case, the non-voter may have done so intentionally, not liking either candidate. Some of these persons voted third party and they had a significant impact upon this election, given how close it was (1.7 million separating Hillary and Trump, with Hillary getting the most). The pool of eligible voters rose 5.5% compared with four years ago—to 227 million from 215.1 million, according to the Census Bureau. Yet the number of ballots cast increased only 1.5%, to 131.2 million from 129.2 million. The votes cast for the two major parties fell in absolute terms. In 2012 the Republicans and Democrats took 126.9 million votes. This year? Only 123.7 million. Third-party candidates grabbed their biggest share since 1996: 5.5%, which translates into 7.5 million votes.

George Will writes of the swing states. I would note that many of these states saw the winner gathering less than 50% of the vote. He provides the numbers for Romney in 2012 and I provide the numbers for Trump. Texas, 4,569,843 (57 percent; Trump 4.6 53%); Florida, 4,163,447 (49 percent; Trump 4.5 million 49%); Pennsylvania, 2,680,434 (47 percent; Trump 2.9 million 49%); Ohio, 2,661,407 (48 percent; Trump 2.7 52%); Michigan, 2,115,256 (45 percent; Trump 2.2, 48%); Virginia, 1,822,522 (47 percent; Trump 1.7 45%); Arizona, 1,233,654 (54 percent; Trump .9 50%); Colorado, 1,185,243 (46 percent; Trump 1.0 45%); Nevada, 463,567 (46 percent; Trump .5 46%); New Hampshire, 329,918 (47 percent; Trump .3, 47%). - Trump lost Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada in this group. Trump clearly out-performed Romney. Will was clearly wrong in thinking Trump would underperform Romney.

I have never seen the sure Democrat and Republican sates listed. This list shows why the electoral college is, at present, in favor of the Democrat candidate, no matter who the Republicans nominate. Here is Will's list:
● The “blue wall” consists of 18 states and the District of Columbia (90% for Hillary). The total electoral votes of these states is 242. The criteria is that they have voted Democrat in at least six consecutive elections. I have included Hillary's numbers, thinking that any of these states that went beneath 50% in an election like this might not be part of the blue wall anymore. California 62, Connecticut 54, Delaware 53, Hawaii 61, Illinois 55, Maine 47, Maryland 59, Massachusetts 60, Michigan 47, Minnesota 46, New Jersey 55, New York 58, Oregon 49.9, Pennsylvania 47, Rhode Island 54, Vermont 61, Washington state 56, Wisconsin 47. - Of this group of states, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin went to Trump. This means that what Trump said would happen actually happened. He believed he could change the electoral map. Thus, George Will was wrong here.
● The Republicans’ “red wall” (in at least six consecutive elections) consists of 13 states with 102 electoral votes. The numbers are for Trump. In this case, the one state that is below 50% is because the state had a strong conservative who presented an alternative to Trump. Alabama 63, Alaska 52, Idaho 59, Kansas 57, Mississippi 58, Nebraska 60, North Dakota 63, Oklahoma 65, South Carolina 55, South Dakota 61, Texas 52, Utah 47, Wyoming 62. - These states remain Republican. In addition, Ark 60, Georgia 51, Indiana 57, Iowa 51, Kentucky 62, Louisiana 58, Missouri 56, Montana 56, Tennessee 61, and West Virginia 68, and surprisingly, Ohio 52, are candidates for a future composition of the red wall.
-Trump was able to break the Democrat blue wall, Hillary did not break into the red wall. Thus, Will was again wrong in his suggestion that some of these states would abandon Trump.

Among the concerns was that Trump would bring down the rest of the Republican ticket. We have a mixed bag here. The Democrats lost the House in 2010. In 2014, they lost the Senate. In 2009, Democrats held 60 seats in the Senate. They have 48 now. Republicans lost a few seats in the House but retain control. They increased governorships to 33, despite the Democrat Party spending significantly more money than the Republican Party on this effort. The Democrat Party has only 6 states in which they have the governor and both legislatures, while for Republicans the number is 24. In 8 additional states, both houses of the legislature are under Republican control but have a Democrat governor. My point is only that the Democrat Party is actually the one that proves to be in trouble after this election. I did not expect this as a result of this election. At the same time, if this were a genuine "wave" election, I think you would have seen growth of the Republican majority in the House. Were some of the losses here due to the way Trump conducted his campaign? I do not know. The Senate is a different animal, in this this year, many more Republicans were up for re-election than Democrats. It really is quite remarkable the Republican Party kept control of the Senate.

For whom will the under 30 voter cast their vote? The last Republican to win this vote was Reagan. 37% for Trump.

The secular voter is growing and supports the Democrat Party. - That trend continues, with Clinton receiving 68% of the "no religion" vote, which was 15% of the electorate. In related news, Trump received 81% of the evangelical vote. He also won other categories of Christian, Protestant, Catholic, and Mormon. He did not win the Jewish vote, with 24%. I am well aware that some Christians, especially on the political left, find it discouraging (mild term) that self-identified Christians voted for Trump.

Republicans have carried the white college educated vote. Will that continue? - George Will was right here. Trump significantly outscored on the non-degree part of the country. Trump won the non-degree voter with 52% of their vote and he received 43% of the college degree voter. However, is this bad? Republicans may well be re-shaping their country-club image. Only 18% of voters had a high school education or less, down from 24% last time, according to the exit poll. Mr. Trump received 12 million votes from them, 2.2 million fewer than Mr. Romney. Mrs. Clinton got 10.6 million votes, 5.8 million fewer than Mr. Obama. Those with a two-year degree or some college grew to 32% of turnout, up from 29%. Compared with 2012, Mr. Trump gained 3.8 million, and Mrs. Clinton dropped 350,000. Voters with a B.A. also increased to 32% from 29%. Among them Mr. Trump gained 260,000 and Mrs. Clinton gained 2.9 million.

Romney gathered 17% of the nonwhite vote. Will that increase or decrease? - My surprise here is that Trump gathered 21%! 8% of the African-American vote went to Trump, which is more than Romney's 6%, but within the range of the normal Republican vote. He also received 29% of the Hispanic/Latino and the Asian vote, while Romney got 27%. He won the white vote 58 percent to 37 percent. In 1984, whites made up 86 percent of the total electorate. That number was 72 percent in 2012. And 70 percent in 2016. Both candidates this year won fewer white votes—Mr. Trump 1.6 million and Mrs. Clinton 2.3 million—than four years ago. 11% of the electorate was Hispanic, a 1% increase over 2012. Mrs. Clinton received nearly 9.4 million Latino votes, up 180,000 from Mr. Obama’s total in 2012. But because Mr. Trump won 29% of Hispanics, up from Mr. Romney’s 27%, the president-elect won 4.2 million Latino votes, roughly 690,000 more than Mr. Romney. 12% of the electorate was Black. On gender he received 54% of the male vote and 47% of the female vote. However, with white women he received 52% of their vote. If one wants to read this data as "white" revolt, one can. I think that is on the surface of the matter. Morning Joe had an interesting discussion of this matter. In my view, this is much more a reaction against political correctness and the prejudices of the Left against anyone who disagrees with them. A majority of people stood up to say No, with 52% of the people voting against Hillary, the candidate who would continue President Obama's legacy. What I find striking is that Trump's numbers are better than Romney when it comes to both non-whites and women voters. This ought to give one pause as to the racist and misogynist accusations. George Will makes a good point in his article after the election that several states that have been Republican are changing in their composition of minorities, such as Arizona, Texas, Nevada, and Georgia.  Those who are politically conservative need to find a way to persuade minorities that their ideas are better than the liberal approach if they really want to improve their lives. Given the numbers in Washington DC for Republicans, the way they actually govern, if it proves to set the country on a better course, will likely be persuasive to many minorities.

-I will look forward to the comments of George Will. He has largely been wrong so far as to what he thought would happen with Trump at the head of the ticket. In his article after this election, he pointed to some things Obama has done that this election wants rolled back, such as executive orders, Obamacare, and the Iran treaty. He then wrote, "The simultaneous sickness of both parties surely reveals a crisis of the U.S. regime. The GOP was easily captured, and then quickly normalized, by history’s most unpleasant and unprepared candidate, whose campaign was a Niagara of mendacities. And the world’s oldest party contrived to nominate someone who lost to him." In another article, he refers to the difficulty that those who have been conservative will have with this "conservative of convenience" in Trump. As with many "never Trump" people from the conservative side, he remains unimpressed with the liberal aspects of his agenda, especially on trade, but even more, the anger that seems to drive much of the Trump campaign.

A few thoughts on the victory of Donald Trump.
- A hint of this outcome was Hillary was not breaking 50% in swing states or nationally. Trump would have an awful week, but her numbers did not change from her 45%. Trump numbers would fluctuate. Further, if Trump was as bad as his opponents said he was, she ought to have broken the 50% marker a long ago. Very simply, many dislike Hillary and her corruption. They wrestled with the obvious deficiencies of Trump. 
- Given the accusation of racist, hating women, and other hates, maybe around 3-6% of the Trump vote was silent. They did not engage a fight with family and friends who took such views of Trump. Many of these were blue collar voters, whose unions told them to vote Hillary. They did not. The economic appeal Trump made apparently won them over.
- It looks like Hillary will get more of the popular vote than Trump. 52% did not want either Bill or Hillary. Many (43%) intentionally stayed home.
- Nationalism/Populism won, not conservativism or liberalism. This was an election against the establishment/elite, especially NYC/WashingtonDC/LA/SF/Entertainment/MSM/Progressive culture. Nationalism and Populism may feel like racism to some, but it does not have to be.
- I think I was wrong because I really thought people would choose the safe route of Hillary vs the risk of Trump. I also thought the Clinton machine was unbeatable.
- I hope that people who focus on race and hatred of women will pause and re-consider their view of those who voted for Trump. I have already suggested that the peaceful transition to President-elect Trump that President Obama and Hillary are making is a positive example at this stage. In addition, I invite you to reflect upon what happened in certain states to push them into the Trump column. Try to imagine the painful reality of this election cycle in general that led many persons to stay home. They did not vote. Some were liberal and some were conservative. They are politically active in general, but did not think they had a candidate for whom they could vote. Try to imagine what it would take for someone who wants their vote to count, but instead votes for a third party candidate they know will lose, not out of arrogance but out of conscience. Try to imagine the feeling of disenfranchisement that led to higher vote totals in rural America and the lower vote totals among millennials and African-Americans. Many persons were just tired of 12 (since Bush) years of salary stagnation, no growth, bail outs, executive orders, lies, deceit, false unemployment numbers, increase on government dependency, surrender in the nation’s security, and back room deals with Iran. To think that mass immigration is risky and destabilizing is not racist. Urging the support of traditional marriage is not degrading of other forms of domestic partnerships. Education may well need more rigor, discipline, and selection. We may need to deter crime through its punishment rather than its indulgence. Pornography may well damage civility. Objecting to abolishing national borders and sovereignty (nationalism) is not the same as degrading people from other lands. Objecting to the violent intervention into foreign countries does not make one weak on national defense or security. Here is another way to re-think the racism accusation. Historically, the white working class has been the backbone of the Democrat Party. Republicans have won the majority of college-educated whites. Trump reversed this, losing the college educated vote but winning the white working class vote. Many of the counties in which the white working class live favored Barack Obama by double digits. On Tuesday, they favored Trump by double digits. The Democrat Party lost the white working class this election (this is hardly permanent) because of its courting of campus leftists and affluent cosmopolitan whites. In the process, many Democrats went directly to labeling the Trump voter as racist. I will grant that those who are conservative, which I distinguish from Trump, have a lot of work to persuade more minorities of the superiority of politically conservative ideas. The advantage the Republican Party has is that it has the power into enact its agenda. If the result is success in economics and peace, that will in itself persuade people. Testimony to this is the success of the Reagan years that turned the votes of the young voter to the Republican Party in the 80s.
- President Obama showed he could energize people to vote for him. People still approve of him. He did not show an ability to transfer that energy to others. The Democrat Party has lost seats throughout the country and Hillary losing now are examples.
- Hillary was a worse candidate than many people thought she was. By that, I mean the baggage of corruption she carried, the indebtedness to Wall Street, and her husband's scandals with women, all factored into the picture. Her experience was bad experience. I am not sure pundits realized how deeply people disliked her. This was as much a defeat of the Clintons as it was a Trump victory. Mr. Trump received about 317,000 more ballots than Mitt Romney, but also a slightly smaller—0.5%—percentage of voters. Mrs. Clinton received 3.5 million fewer ballots and 3.4% less than President Barack Obama. Mr. Trump didn’t win because he greatly expanded the GOP, but because Mrs. Clinton lost a significant chunk of the Obama coalition. Compared with 2012 she dropped 1.8 million African-Americans, one million voters age 18-29, 1.8 million voters aged 30-44, 2.6 million Catholics, and nearly 4.5 million voters with family income of $30,000 or less.
- I am amazed that Trump took on the Clinton and Bush dynasty, the establishment of both political parties, the media establishment, the entertainment industry, and essentially created his own movement. I do not know how it will end. Clinton outspent Trump 3-1 and raised more than a billion dollars. She received this money from Wall Street, Silicon Valley and the great American gilded fortunes of Goldman Sachs, Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway, Facebook and Google. These were not silent supporters. They were quite vocal and obvious in their support.
- As always, post-election analysis will keep trying to sort through lessons from losing for the Democrat Party. One prominent explanation is to focus upon Clinton as an unappealing corporate crony. If this interpretation becomes dominant, the likely outcome is to push the Party toward Bernie Sanders (75, 79 in 4 years) and Elizabeth Warren (67, 71 in 4 years), and thus, further to the Left. Michelle Obama anyone?
- As I write in December, President Obama and Hillary have become unhelpful in the peaceful transition of power. It is understandable. The depth of the Democrat defeat and the possibility that success on the part of the Trump over these four years could mean the decimation of their ideology naturally leads them to desperation. In this case, it means backing attempts to dispute the legitimating power of the vote America has taken. The danger of introducing Russian involvement and the undermining of the electoral college does not matter in this battle for power. Given how gracious both were immediately after the election, I find this disappointing.
- As a conservative, I find myself pleasantly surprised at the nominees for the Cabinet and Staff. What I am witnessing is that Trump and his cabinet are people of action as over against people of thought or intellect. These are people who will get things done. Charles Krauthammer offers his analysis of the appointees at this point. He was no friend of Trump during the nomination or election process, but seems impressed with these appointments.

Here is a prayer I have found helpful.

We come with troubled hearts to this place of prayer, O God. We have elected a new leader for our country. Many are pleased, but others are worried. But you are our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble. Because you are always near, we have no reason to fear, even when our world and our lives seem to be falling apart, crumbling beneath our very feet. In the midst of danger and destruction, violence and vice, malice and malady, you are a rock of faithfulness. You are a refuge in which we may find shelter, a port of safety from the storm and a mother's comfort from our fears and anxieties. Hide us now under your wings; cover us with your mighty hand. When the oceans rise and the thunder roars, we will soar with you above the floods, above the clouds, beyond the turmoil and chaos of this world. We will be still and know that you are God, and in you we will find rest for our weary hearts, and hope for our souls. Lord God, we are fully aware that we do not live in a perfect world. So open our eyes to what can be, O God. Let us be a people of faith-full action. May we ourselves be the answer when we wonder what to do; enable each of us to be a person who blurs boundaries of exclusion into circles of inclusion. Let us be a people of hope so that where darkness exists, we might bring light. Let us so live our lives that Jesus would say of us, "Here is a woman; here is a man; here is a child of great faith ... here is a person of great love." We beseech you, God of grace. Let it be so. We pray in the name of the one who showed us what a life of love and perfection looks like, Jesus the Christ who taught us to say when we pray ...

Honoring Spiritual Parents

           

John Wesley, founder of the Methodist movement, enjoyed and celebrated All Saints Day. In a journal entry from November 1, 1767, Wesley calls it “a festival I truly love.” On the same day in 1788, he writes, “I always find this a comfortable day.” The following year he calls it “a day that I peculiarly love.”

All Saints Day is an opportunity to give thanks for all those who have gone before us in the faith. It is a time to celebrate our history, what United Methodists call the tradition of the church. From the early days of Christianity, there is a sense that the Church consists of not only all living believers, but also all who have gone before us. For example, in Hebrews 12 the author encourages Christians to remember that a “great cloud of witnesses” surrounds us encouraging us, cheering us on.[1]

A sign on the Winchester cathedral in England says, as you enter the church, “you are entering a conversation that began long before you were born and will continue long after you’re dead.” To be a Christian partly means that we do not have to reinvent the wheel, morally speaking. We do not have to make up this faith as we go. The saints will teach us, if we will listen. Moreover, for modern, North American people, it takes a kind of studied act of humility to think that we actually have something to learn from the saints.

As Christians, God does not abandon us to the moment. Our faith is more than "contemporary" (literally: with the times). We do not invent the faith or the gospel anew in each generation. The words and lives of the saints guide and encourage. We learn to think with them. Think of the Christian faith as extended conversation with the dead, dialogue with the saints.

            As G. K. Chesterton said, one of the difficulties of modernity is that we keep talking about how free we are. We have freed ourselves from our past. All that does, said Chesterton, is that we have become slaves to that arrogant oligarchy of those who just happen to be walking about at this moment. Chesterton also said that being a “traditionalist” means a determination not to automatically dismiss any man’s opinion outright just because he happens to be your father.

            I am thinking of some fathers and mothers of the faith I have had. A pastor, a SS teacher, a youth leader, a few professors in college and even Seminary, have nourished me in Christian faith. I feel blessed. I honor them today. I honor by biological parents. I also honor those parents in the faith. They taught me the importance of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. As much as I may have changed in my life, I do not want that changed. These persons always treated the Bible with honor and respect. We rarely discussed theories about the Bible, but we put it at the center of our attempts to understand what it means to follow Jesus today.

            The churches always need to be contemporary in the sense that they must minister to the needs and issues of the time. However, to do so does not mean we minister “with the times.” We must often minister “against the times.”

You check out the Ten Commandments, it says that thing about ‘honor your father and mother.’ This is our attempt to do that in just this small way. Because to be a Christian is to find yourself moving to a different rhythm, a different beat.

            Built right into Christianity is the courageous determination to be traditionalists, to sit with the saints, and thus participate in one of the most revolutionary activities of the church.

---

[1] Joe Iovino at UMC Communicaitons