11/11

Today is of twofold value to me. In the US, it's Veterans' Day. Overseas, it's Remembrance Day or Armistice Day.

(Memorial Day, in the US, is on the anniversary of the end of the Civil War and has been a holiday here, obviously, longer than Remembrance/Armistice Day has been in the rest of the world)

To my friends, family, and colleagues in the US:

For those of you who have served, thank you. Whether in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, or Coast Guard, whether based abroad or at home, whether in combat or out of combat, you have risked and given much in the defense of this country and the ideals it holds dear.

For that, you will always have my thanks and appreciation.

To my friends and former colleagues overseas:

Today, we remember those who paid the ultimate price. WWI and WWII exacted an extreme toll on many countries and many communities around the world. Of course, these are not the only wars waged on a global scale. Immediately coming to mind are the Vietnam war and Korean conflict. These men and women gave their lives to pursue and protect the ideals we hold dear in our modern, Western age.

From the rising of the sun to the setting of the same, we will remember.

On Electoral College

All right. So, I want to tackle something that it appears many individuals in my generation don't quite get (and, frankly, I didn't fully understand until the night of the election, thanks to a couple friends of mine): Why the heck do we have an electoral college and what is its purpose?

Something that was a big help to me was the following video:

The way I understand it, when we vote in Nov, we're not actually voting for our president. We're voting for our states' representatives to the electoral college. 

To make a comparison to another branch of government: we don't vote as an entire populace on legislative matters. Instead, we elect individuals to vote on our behalf, trusting them to make their decisions on the behalf of their constituents.

Here's the deal, from what I understand, when a party puts itself on a state's ballot (or as a write-in), they must provide a list of individuals who will serve, basically as the electors, or, if you want to think of it this way, the potential ambassadors from that state to the electoral college, should that party win.

So, if I understand properly and if electoral college is done well, we are, in essence, electing our electoral committee who will then elect the president. The reason we tend to think of the Nov election as basically the presidential election is because it's very rare, and in certain states, illegal, for electoral college members to vote for a party candidate not from their own party.

Why do some sparsely-populated states, like Wyoming, have a stronger proportional representation per capita than more populous states, like California?

From what I understand, this was done to prevent the interests of the populous states, and especially the interests of densely-populated urban areas from overshadowing the interests of other, less densely-populated parts of the country. This helps to ensure that the presidential candidates make some kind of effort to reach out to these states.

To put it in a kind of perspective, the system has a measure of short-term unfairness of voter representation in it to prevent a more severe long-term unfairness of votee representation.

Why do a majority of states have a winner-takes-all approach to assigning their electoral college members?

I have no bloody idea. Frankly, that frustrates me, too. If part of the purpose of electoral college is to induce coalition-forming across political lines, then surely a proportional representation would be better for the country overall, right?

As a proponent of third parties, first-past-the-post, winner-takes-all approaches merely secure a duality of dominant parties, because the states then become the filtering ground to snuff out any third party opposition. Would it not be in the interest of the greater populace if, because of third parties, neither major party would alone be able to reach the 270 of 538 electoral college votes necessary to appoint the president? 

My question/proposal is this: 

• Currently, the wining party being awarded the entire gamut of elector slots for a particular state, gaining disproportionate representation of the state's populace.
• If the elector slots are distributed proportionally as represented by the state's vote, would third parties be able to gain traction as swing parties, comparable to how certain states are swing states, being able to be the determining factor in which party's nominee?
• This would necessitate that electors not be under compulsion to vote their party, but be given the freedom to be swayed by argument and debate.

I know that, initially, the electoral college would become a reflection of the popular vote, becoming subject to its "tyranny", but my hopeful vision is of a 40%-40% split in electoral college, with the remaining 20% being a scattering of third-party representatives.

How are a party's potential electors for each state chosen?

Frankly, I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if they're appointed by the state chapter prior to or as a requirement for obtaining ballot or write-in access. Personally, I think it would be beneficial to have greater transparency, for registered members of a party to be able to vote for the electors in their state's conventions. Of course, this is just a speculative example.

In closing, clearly, I am a fan of the electoral college system. I think there are tweaks that could be made to improve it. I also think that we need to stop portraying the Nov election as the presidential election. The Nov election, while currently the de facto presidential election, is actually the election of our electoral college representatives. This false portrayal of the Nov elections needs to stop. We, as a populace, need to educate ourselves into the workings of our representative democracy, to be better informed about the effects and implications of what we are truly voting for. Only then will we be able to petition for reform, if we still deem it necessary.

As the Dust Settles

So, another arguably successful election season has passed. Someone has won. Many have lost. Some feel vindicated, some disappointed, and some like they've sold their souls (yet justified that they did what was necessary).

All of these sentiments I agree with and understand. Me, I voted for a third party. I was under no illusions that they would win, but I was at least hoping for a major spoiler effect due to the sum total of third party votes. (Props to Utahland for a 20% McMullin spoiler).

For those a little out of touch with the American political race, this was a hugely heated race. As a fan of neither dominant party candidate, I saw, on the one hand, a hardened career politician with pending criminal cases and, on the other hand, a bragadocious demagogue spouting populist rhetoric. These caricatures were and are just that - caricatures. Hillary and Trump are both more and less than their media portrayals, as are every other candidate who ran.

As I wrote I the aftermath of the last election and the one before it, we, as citizens, and we, as Christians, have a responsibility to respect and honour our leadership. I know that sounds archaic and dated in our advancingly progressive society. After all, that's the beauty of Liberalism, right? I am beholden to no one and am completely free to speak my mind and take my own action as best befits what I deem best for myself. And yet, I admonish you to set a small measure of individual liberty aside for the benefit of the community. If we all set aside a measure of "I"-ness, of "Me first"-ness, of "Validate my ideas"-ness, or any other breed of self-seeking and instead seek the benefit of our local and national communities, then we can and will see our nation grow closer in understanding.

How do we do this?

Well, for starters, we can:

• Respect the government officials elected over us 
• Pray for our presidents, congressmen, and local government officials
• Pray for and support our police, EMS, firefighters, military, and other similar servicemen
• Love our neighbours
• Understanding who our neighbours are
• Understanding what it means to love another
• Understanding the magnitude of the love we are to exemplify
• Advocating peaceably for necessary change, even if it doesn't directly affect oneself
• Caring for the minorities, refugees, immigrants, etc. among you
• Caring for the poor and those unable to effectively care for themselves
• Standing up for those who are oppressed in your communities
• Share the Gospel within our communities **
• Actively living out our faith 
• Teaching new Christians what it truly means to follow Christ

I know it seems like a lot, but, please, join with me as I seek to make the best I can of the new, upcoming political and social environment of this country for the benefit of my local community. If enough people from diverse backgrounds and regions begin to carry and act upon these type of ideals, perhaps we will see healing happen within our generation

** For my non Christian readers: I do not and will not apologise for my faith. Active evangelism and discipleship are integral components of Christianity. 

Option C

I've not been a fan of Trump or Hillary from the beginning. With Hillary, it's been the pending trial - I already have one president with "postponed" investigations (approx 783 of them, to be specific) and I don't want a second. With Trump, it's been his character and demeanour - from the get-go, he's struck me as a populist and demagogue, the likes of which I used to see every election in South Africa or a neighbouring country.

Now, courtesy of my South African upbringing, I am not overly close-minded to minor political parties. After all, at least one new party is formed every election back home. In previous years, I had dismissed third parties as a trivial waste of a vote, especially when there was a candidate I didn't mind voting for.

I watched in horror as Dr Carson, Rubio, and Kasich, the three Republican candidates that I, as a conservative-leaning moderate felt able to vote for, fell before the steamroller that was Trump. I admire Kasich for his conviction and unwillingness to step down - his tenacity spoke volumes about his character and, as more came out about him, I continued to be impressed, but I digress.

Seeing the Trump/Hillary split, I began researching third party options. I was only familiar with the Libertarian and Green parties and so, settled on Johnson as my choice for president. Now, yes, I've heard the arguments from Trump/Hillary supporters that "A vote for a third party is a vote for Hillary/Trump," and I happen to disagree wholeheartedly. Yes, electoral college muddies things up, but a third party vote is not a vote in favour of "The Opposition"; it is a vote in favour of that specific third party. Consider the following opinion:

Comment from discussion I want to vote third party, but....

Like the Redditor I've quoted above, I'm of the mindset that too many people vote Republican or Democrat over their personal convictions because they're afraid that everyone else is going to do the same. If everyone who was considering voting for a third party did so, there would be a massive disruption. Would the GOP or Dems probably still win? Perhaps, but it wouldn't be a clean, near 50-50 division. Instead, I wouldn't expect either party to get above 40%, let alone reach 40%. Can you imagine the effect on the political climate if neither Republicans nor Democrats obtained higher than 35%?

Back to my story.

In the last month or so, I became personally convicted over my view towards presidential candidates. My old view was very pragmatic - I didn't care if they were pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-anything-opposing-Christianity. None of that I deemed necessary to run a country, so I simply voted on policy and capability. I looked down sometimes on Christians who would rather vote for a pro-lifer whom I thought was a poorer choice for the country as opposed to a better-qualified pro-choicer. Gary Johnson, in my opinion, was one such choice. I disagreed with his platform on many areas, but I was willing to vote for him as the best of three options.

Then my perspective was changed.

I don't remember what prompted the change, but I had a priority shift. Part of my realisation, you see, was that it was of greater importance to honour God than to pick my choice of what's best for the country. After all, Ahab was an excellent king by the world's standards. He conquered territory, forged treaties, and maintained Israel as a prosperous nation, but because he would not honour God, he is considered a terrible king. Conversely, David was nobody's pick to be king. He was the youngest son of a small shepherding family, but he sought to honour god to the best of his abilities and God gave him what he needed to rule effectively.

That realisation coincided with a post from The Gospel Coalition. The fact that there is a Christian Democratic party in the US that seeks to honour God through the planks in their platform blew my mind. I thought most Christians, like myself, just tried to make do with unpalatable options, but we don't need to. Someone else, fed up with the lack of God-honouring options, decided to make their own party in the mid-late 2000's. Now, do I agree with all aspects of the ASP's platform? I wouldn't say so - I tend to lean a little more fiscally conservative than they do - but I do agree with their overarching goal, vision, and motivation enough that I am willing to throw my lot with a young, small party. I can vote for a candidate whom I trust will seek to honour God and have faith that God will give what is needed to run this country.

This is my Option C. What's yours?

Forest and Trees

Today, I want to speak to my fellow white people, particularly my fellow Christian white people.

Many of us are missing the point

Yesterday, an innocent man, Terence Crutcher, was shot. He was an innocent man inspecting his own car. He was tazed and shot because he did not immediately follow instructions. He was unarmed. He had his hands up and visible. Now, investigations are ongoing and this article has a fairly good summary of the due process that needs to be followed and the confounding legal questions, but the shooting is not what I want to highlight.

I want to highlight our response.

You see, Mr Crutcher is a black man and, unfortunately, he is now the newest name in a growing list of black men killed by police. He is now the next name on a list in the argument against police brutality and social injustice. You would think that, after such a tragedy, there would be mourning as a community in response. No, no. I only heard about the shooting via my wife. I saw nothing from any of my white friends except a post which showed how there are good relationships between black men and police.

Yesterday, in Langa, a peri-urban settlement (lit. a shack town) in Cape Town, South Africa, inhabited almost completely by poor black individuals, was in the midst of a protest against poor services delivery. The only word I heard from any of my SA friends was from one person who had to drive through the protest, recounting the shock of riot police, guns, and the smoke of burning tires, praising God and thanking the police that she made it through safely. My fellow white people, I am ashamed. You are focusing on the minutiae, the trees, when the problem is with the forest.

The protest of police vs black violence is not about shaming the police. It doesn't require you to defend the police or discredit the victim and find opposing evidence - there will always be evidence to oppose anything, provided the inclination is there. The issue is about respect and fair treatment under the law, something assumed by many of us white people, but still being fought for by many of our fellow black men and women.

Service delivery protests/riots, while terrifying, are happening because of a real problem. While we recount the horrors and fears experienced as an outsider passing through, let us remember that what many white people have and take for granted, our black brothers and sisters are fighting to obtain - and not because they cannot afford it, but because it has yet to be delivered.

Just because we, as white people, are not immediately impacted is not a sufficient excuse to dismiss the injustice surrounding us in society. When Christ gave the parable of the good Samaritan, he did not say that our neighbour extended only to those who looked/spoke/thought like us. No, the whole point of the parable is that loving our neighbour means seeing the hurt, the maligned, the needy, and doing what we can to help.

And that help? I'm not advocating at all for the White Messiah complex. For help to be actual help, it must be the right type of assistance/aid/support, given in the right manner, at the right time. To make a comparison, if someone drops on the floor, having a heart attack, you don't begin scolding the individual for any habit he/she might have that contributed to his heart attack; you administer CPR or find someone who can. When social injustice is shown, you don't tell the victims they're imagining things or that they've contributed to their own issues; you stop and listen, giving a willing ear and a heart willing to understand, and, should the opportunity present, take some measure of appropriate action.

Are we not called to weep with those who weep and mourn with those who mourn? What would it hurt to take a moment to empathise - to place ourselves, our families in these repeated cycles of injustice? Would it hurt to turn to a black friend, relative, or colleague and simply say, "I heard about what happened. I'm so sorry."? Take the initiative. Put yourself out there in love, seeking to understand or support. Make that connection. If nothing else, it's a start.

Chicken and Egg

So, my wife and I were getting food and, while we were eating/heading home, I had a revelatory moment. It hit me that many of us have the perception of the relationship between Diet and Exercise backwards.

Instead of dieting comparative to our daily level of exercise, we often seek to exercise comparative to our dietary intake.

The more I think about it, the more backwards it sounds. That's like saying "I put two extra gallons of gas in the car this week, so I need to drive it more."

As long as we use exercise as a means to try and undo our bad dietary habits, we're never going to make any serious effect on our health. As long as we keep the attitude of "I'll just do an extra couple of laps to make up for [those] doughnut[s]," we will always be stuck in a losing battle. As a society, we are far too sedentary to eat the way we do.

____________________________________Side Note_____________________________________
Now, I need to pause here. I must admit that I am exhibiting a clear example of "Do what I say; not what I do," because, remember the food I was eating in the car - it was Taco Bell (not to mention the regrettable number of doughnuts eaten at a conference this morning). So, keep in mind that I need to work on this myself.
_________________________________________________________________________________

So, instead of viewing exercise as a tool to undo bad eating habits, how should we be eating?

Well, we should be eating like professional athletes

That may sound odd, especially for those like myself who are mostly too busy to fit a regular workout in, but it's true. When we think about how athletes eat, it becomes very clear that athletes eat to fuel their bodies. They make sure to eat enough proteins, carbs, and fats to meet the demands of their sport. After all, they are using up a lot of energy that has to come from somewhere. Similarly, for those who rarely see the inside of a gym or who don't set apart time for physical activity, we need to eat enough proteins, carbs, and fats to meet our metabolic demands. The difference is, our demands are far less.

And, let's face it: eating less is far easier than exercising more.

So, let me ask the burning questions:

• Do I really need that 12oz ribeye or would a 6oz cut be better?
• Do I really need that one/two/four (cough cough guilty cough) doughnuts?
• Do I really need to pack my plate that full this Thanksgiving?
• Do I really need that mid-afternoon snack?

If you're anything like me (rugby 2-4 hrs/week; gym 0-4 hrs/week), the answer might just be, "No," and, you know what, it's okay.

So, come join me as I re-evaluate my own dietary intake and tune it to match my output

The Role of Law

One question I've heard off and on, particularly when, in church/ministry circles, a teacher or a student is asking a thought-provoking question, is, in my own words, "Given Christ and the new covenant, what is now the role of the Law, the old covenant?"

I think many times, in my experience, we try to answer something along the lines of, "It serves to show us the standard and impossibility of perfection."

It's a good answer, but it also sells the old covenant somewhat short. After all, there are times when God had remarked to Israel that He would prefer the sincere worship of their hearts to the empty exactitude of lawfulness.

While doing some reading and spending time with God today, I came across a small little verse that really illuminated, to me, the role of the Law, especially in light of Christ:

"So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith." - Gal 3:24

The Law wasn't some cosmic quality metric to show us our imperfection. Neither was it a ball and chain, enslaving the Israelites. No, the Law served to illustrate to the Israelites the character of God, that they might grow in understanding, becoming ripe for the harvest of faith, that is, Christ. The original Greek word used for "guardian" is paidagogos, a word used for a servant whose role was (to train up a child by administering discipline, chastisement, and instruction." (HELPS Word-Studies, Helps Ministries Inc.)

studyblue.com