What's up with today's youth?

 HS #133 2026.8.13

 

What’s up with today’s youth? 

 

Just now back from the Holland Charter Township Community Center where I play pickleball regularly. Thirsty, I headed for the water fountains – one at adult height and one lower for children. Just ahead of me a 6’ 3” teen got there first. With no fanfare, he chose the lower fountain.  Bending down to drink, he allowed me the more comfortable one. I thanked him for his generosity and told him that he had respected his elders. He smiled and wished me a good day. 

 

I wouldn’t have thought to do that so naturally and easily as a teenager. 

 

A bit later I was playing doubles with a 17-year-old partner. Several times when I made a bad shot, I called out “My fault” to which he reflexively responded, “All good.” I’m not that well behaved toward my partners at age 68. 

 

What’s up with all this good behavior? 

 

A few weeks ago, I was riding my bike back to my house on East 12^th Street. Rounding the corner from Fairbanks, I passed what I call the “Hope Football House.”  Greeted by the smell of grilled hamburgers, I mentioned to one of the guys in the yard that they smelled great. He instantly offered me one, and brought me a plate with a huge burger covered with cheese – along with a bag of chips. Never had met them before. 

 

What’s up? 

 

Now, let’s be careful. First of all, I am offering no sociological evidence. As someone has said, the plural of anecdote is not data. I leave such research to others. I am merely asking you, the reader, to reflect on your own experiences with today’s young people and concur (or disagree) with me. 

 

Secondly, I am not trying to paint an overly rosy picture of today’s youth. Each generation has its own challenges and struggles. Certainly, a well-documented struggle of current young people is the depression that comes from comparing themselves not only with others who are physically present, but with countless friends who use social media to display their good times and activities. 

 

But I AM saying that many of today’s youth are impressively polite and well mannered. 

 

Twenty years ago in the early days of email, a typical message from a student might have been, “Hi.  I won’t be in class tomorrow. Let me know if you cover anything important.”  The standard email these days is, “Dear Professor Pennings – I hope you’re having a good weekend. I’m sorry that I will miss class Monday for a doctor’s appointment. I will get the notes from a friend and will ask if I have questions. Thanks much and have a good evening.” 

 

I started getting these emails four years ago when I began teaching at Calvin University and wondered who was coaching the students. An introductory class? AI? High school training? But talking to colleagues at other colleges, apparently these polite and well-written emails are common today. 

 

What’s up?

 

For this one, I have a possible answer. When email came on the scene at the end of the last century, it provided a quick informal alternative to physical letters and memos for those of us who grew up with paper. But for the present generation, texting is now the quick, informal means of communication, leaving email as the formal mode. Seem reasonable? 

 

But I suspect something deeper is also at play. 

 

As a Baby Boomer, I grew up in a home where I was expected to obey and respect my parents. “Spare the rod, spoil the child” was preached on Sundays, and corporal punishment was allowed at school. The “Generation Gap” of the 60’s and early 70’s followed.  But then something happened in our culture.  “Leave it to Beaver” and “Father Knows Best” gave way to “Family Ties” and “Silver Spoons” and “The Cosby Show” where parents were understanding pals rather than adult authorities. Time out sessions replaced spankings. These X-Generation and Millennial children with kinder-gentler parents have now had their own children and have passed on the spirit. 

 

When college years came, I was eager to leave home to put distance between me and the parents. But today’s young people, it seems, often count their parents among their best friends and closest associates. Many stay in close contact via their phones. 

 

And perhaps, just perhaps, these friendly relationships with parents have produced teenagers who are friendly with and act kindly towards all of us older folk. I’d like to think so. 

 

America 250: The Power of Words

 HS #132 2026.7.10  (reprinting of HS #36   2018.7.3) 

 

America 250: The Power of Words

 

 “You’ll be the same person in five years as you are today except for the books you’ve read, the people you’ve met, and the places you’ve visited.”  Lots of truth to that adage. After taking a long-awaited trip to Scotland, a wonderful country, I returned with a new appreciation of this one.  For one significant reason:  The U.S.A was built on the power of words. 

 

The idea struck me while taking a tour of Edinburgh Castle, culminating in viewing the Crown Jewels of Scotland.  They are magnificent – a crown, a scepter, a sword, and The Stone of Destiny.  These items have been used throughout the centuries to symbolize the power and authority of the Scottish rulers.  The Stone – a 300 pound chunk of sandstone – was the object upon which the early kings of Scotland were bestowed as rulers, and it has been used ever since in the coronations of England and Scotland.  Residing for 700 years in Westminster Abbey, England returned the Stone to Scotland in 1996, but still calls it back to be set under the thrown when each new monarch is crowned. 

 

Seeing these revered objects – all protected under thick glass, I was reminded of the novel, “The Lord of the Flies.”  A group of young boys is marooned on an island.  Starting out well, rivalries and conflict develop, and a conch shell is chosen as the symbol of power. Whoever has it, has the authority to speak. 

 

Rather silly, but that has been the method of bestowing and displaying power throughout the centuries. Consider the exalted pulpits used in cathedrals, the robe and cap of the pope, the stars on the uniforms of generals, signet rings of ancient Rome and Egypt, the Chinese five-clawed dragon robes, and the crown jewels and coat of arms of European rulers. 

 

How radically brilliant it was then for our Founding Fathers to reject all such physical symbols. Instead of crown jewels protected under thick glass, we have the original copies of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence - words on a piece of paper - protected by bullet-proof glass and ready to descend into a deep vault at any threat of danger. 

 

Instead of receiving a scepter and crown, the President-elect says words - simple words of the oath of office. Repeating those 35 words is necessary and sufficient to become the next President of the United States. 

 

Indeed, our faith in those words is so powerful that in 2009 when Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and President-elect Obama slightly muffed up the oath of office, they repeated it the next day – correctly.  Google “Swearing In Ceremony of Gerald Ford” for a West Michiganer’s thoughts on the Oath. Note how the Chief Justice addresses Ford before and after he takes the oath.   

 

 

How interesting this all is! Our Founding Fathers are rightfully credited with establishing a new form of government – a republic where the power is held by the people rather than by a royal family or ruling class. The method of delegating that power – via the election of a president and representatives with oversight by appointed justices - is also recognized as an historical innovation.  But along with these, less noted but no less revolutionary, the Founding Fathers also realized that the symbols of authority should not be objects, but words.  They believed in the power of words. 

 

It is appropriate then that our two greatest presidents were instrumental in cementing that new faith. After eight years in office, President Washington willingly gave up his authority when John Adams became the second person to say the oath of office.  This allowed for the peaceful transfer of power, prompting King George III to say of Washington, “If he does that, he shall be the greatest man in the world.” 

 

And 63 years later, President Lincoln reflecting back on the previous century and looking forward with hope, exclaimed that a nation so founded would long endure. At just one point in that speech Lincoln erred. He said  “The world will little note nor long remember what we say here . . . “ In that statement he was mistaken, since the Gettysburg Address, which I memorized as a fifth-grader and can still recite, follows only the Sermon on the Mount on the TIME list of Speeches that Changed the World. Maybe even Lincoln underestimated how much we in the U.S.A. value the power of words. It’s a heritage in which we can all take pride. 

George Washington's Spies

 HS #131 2026.6.11

 

George Washington’s Spies

 

“Washington didn’t outfight the British; he simply out-spied us” – a British Revolutionary War officer.

 

Did you know that? “Washington’s Secret Six” by Brian Kilmeade and Don Yaeger is a fascinating account showing how the Revolutionary War was indeed won because of a handful of closeted patriots in New York City who spied for Washington.  (Audiobook available from Herrick District Library.) Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4yLzC85w3Y    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNRLd85eKW8  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VF8fg58tW68

 

 

These spies were so secretive that even Washington knew some only by their code names. He kept his promise to keep their identities secret, but he also saved their correspondence – ostensibly to allow historians one day to give them their due credit. 

 

Yet the identity of the principal spy eluded historians’ best efforts. Until in 1929 Morten Pennypacker noticed the handwriting of a prominent New Englander was identical to that of the unidentified spy. Discovering his identity allowed their collective story to be told. 

 

The spy-ring included one woman, still known only by her code name: 355. She was in a position (and perhaps occupation) that enabled her to get valuable detailed information, all unsuspected until she was discovered and likely imprisoned on a British prisoner ship where she eventually died. 355 was probably as essential for the outcome of the war as any of the patriots we read about in our school history books – yet we don’t even know her name. Ponder that. 

 

How did they contribute to the victory? What did they accomplish?

 

You likely know of the Christmas 1776 surprise attack by Washington in which his army crossed the Delaware River at night, marched nine miles and attacked the Hessian enlisted soldiers in a complete victory which gave their struggling cause new hope. Probably you don’t know that the surprise happened because a spy (trusted by the British) told the British that Washington’s troops were discouraged and tired and would be resting over the Christmas holiday. So the Hessian soldiers drank and partied before bedding down for – they assumed - a good night’s sleep. 

 

You know of the traitor Major General Benedict Arnold. Perhaps you don’t know that he came very close to giving the victory to England by convincing Washington to give him control of the fort at West Point, which he would turn over to the British (possibly with Washington inside). It was Washington’s spies who helped uncover the plot, which in turn led to the capture of Britain’s venerable spy, Major John Andre.  Although Andre was liked and respected by friend and enemy alike, Washington had him hung – likely in retaliation for the hanging of unsuccessful spy Nathan Hale. Such a fate awaited any captured spy. It was not just a witticism of Ben Franklin when he told his colleagues, “We must all hang together, or we shall all hang separately.” (England buried Andre in Westminster Abbey.) 

 

You perhaps know that Washington finally defeated General Cornwallis at Yorktown because the French navy defeated the British on sea, while Washington penned the enemy forces on land. However, only in reading this book did I learn the reason for the French naval victory. One of Washington’s spies who worked in a NYC print shop obtained the entire British naval codebook, so the French forces knew immediately how the British ships would move as secret orders were passed from the command ship to other ships during the battle. 

 

Washington’s spies also discovered a clever plot by the British to flood the country with counterfeit American currency bills. This would have rendered U.S. currency useless and crippled the new nation. 

 

When Ben Franklin convinced the French to support the American cause by committing their naval forces and thousands of accompanying troops, it was clear to everyone (including the British) that France was preparing to send a major force. Washington, who had himself served as a spy two decades earlier during the French and Indian War, was clever enough to realize that England had a spy network as well. So Washington made fake detailed plans for an attack of New York City, and arranged to have the plans lost so that they ended up in British hands.  This caused the British to keep their forces in NYC rather than to use them to repel the French forces as they landed in Rhode Island.  Washington’s attack never came, and the British realized they had been tricked – big time! 

 

 The whole account is fascinating. These spies, whose sacrifices gained our independence, deserve a statue, and their story deserves to be told and known. 

The 80/20 Principle and the 70% Rule

 HS #130 2026.5.14

 

The 80/20 Principle and the 70% Rule

 

Have you heard of the 80/20 Principle? It’s a management concept that says 20% of the people in any group do 80% of the work (and hence 80% of the people do only 20% of the work). It’s also a quantification of the Law of Diminishing Returns. For example, I can spend 30 minutes a day lifting weights and in cardiovascular exercise, or I can increase my workout time four-fold  and get even more benefit. However, it’s likely that I get 80% of the health benefit from just that first half hour. Putting in all the extra effort does not give that much more added effect. 

 

Same goes with, say, buying a bicycle. I can buy a new quality bicycle for $600, or I get one that is three pounds lighter and perhaps more gears for $3000. But, the point is, I get 80% of the benefit of a bicycle for 20% of the cost. 

 

I first learned of this when I was in college from the campus director of Campus Crusade for Christ (CCC). He challenged us in the leadership of the organization to apply the 80/20 principle to our time in college. In particular, he suggested that instead of putting in all of the effort needed to get A’s in our classes, we put in much less time (20%) and be satisfied with earning B grades. Then we could use the extra time in ministry and evangelizing with CCC, hence making a greater impact on campus. 

 

I was a serious student, but also was a committed member of CCC who already spent 15 hours a week leading Bible studies, teaching the entire group, and actively sharing the “4 Spiritual Laws” with friend and stranger alike. So I took his recommendation seriously. 

 

However, I came to a different conclusion. I decided that the 80/20 principle might well be applied to many areas of one’s life in order to maximize one’s total impact. However, each person may have a particular area of life in which s/he wants to really excel and strive for perfection. I realized that since I was bound for graduate school in mathematics, that my academic pursuits were the one area where I should nix the 80/20 principle and instead fully commit myself to excellence.  However, I could and should apply the 80/20 principle to other endeavors, including my time in CCC. So, I cut back a bit on my ministry activities and learned more from my math classes (and graduated summa cum laude and PBK). 

 

More recently, I have discovered another related principle which I call the “70% Rule.” I notice it when I watch professional tennis and when I play pickleball. 

 

The idea is this: Competitors often hedge their bets. I notice that tennis pros engaged in a long rally may have an opportunity to make a decisive shot that will give them the point, but, fearing an error, they cautiously hit the ball at 70% (my estimate). As a result, often their opponent not only gets to the ball, but gains the offensive, and eventually secures the point. 

 

I get angry with myself when I notice that I do the same when playing pickleball. I don’t trust myself with a put-away shot, so I compromise and hit one that I think will do the job. However, then I watch as my opponent, faster than I expected, gets to the ball and pushes one past me. 

 

Both of these rules require wisdom and discernment to determine when they should and shouldn’t be applied. 

 

Any good financial advisor will tell you not to put all your eggs in one basket. Diversifying one’s assets (essentially my 70% Rule) won’t lead to the greatest potential wealth, but it is safer – and that counts for a lot. 

 

I just now heard an NPR story that Elon Musk will be investing $20 billion from Tesla into AI/robotic technology. Stock went down on the news. Musk doesn’t care – he does not live by the 70% Rule. He’s a success story. 

 

However, I recently had a phone conversation with a college friend who, following his father’s dream, has committed his whole life (including mortgaging his house) into a design and production venture based on their 100% commitment to following God’s will. At age 69, he is realizing that it has not worked as planned. 

 

Not safe; was it wise? Hard to say, but it is such people who change the world. 

Kinship of Mathematics and Science

 HS #129 2026.4.9

 

Kinship of Mathematics and Science 

 

In May 2024, we discussed whether mathematics is invented or discovered.  (Remember?) Now, we explore another long-battled question about mathematical knowledge: Does one learn mathematical truths from observing the natural world, or are we born with mathematical knowledge inside of us? 

 

Kant believed that unlike scientific knowledge of the natural world gained via experimentation, mathematical knowledge “rests upon no empirical grounds.”  He claimed we know mathematics a priori (prior to experience); we could discover it in a dark closet without ever seeing the world. 

 

I respectfully disagree. 

 

It seems to me that mathematics is initially learned via experience. It took Bertrand Russell and Alfred Whitehead ten years and 379 pages of logic to prove that 1+1 = 2, but the rest of us know it by counting our fingers. Given a circle, the length of the circumference divided by the length of the diameter always gives the same ratio, which we call pi. How do we know? Experience. Indeed, I send my math classes to athletic fields with ropes of different lengths where they pace off the circumference and the diameter. Always get pi.  Another example:  Why do we know that the order of adding numbers doesn’t matter (7+9 = 9+7)? Because we’ve tried it many times and it works. It's an axiom of the real numbers;  we are convinced of its truth via experience. Why do I know that five is a prime number? Because no matter how I try to divide this many dollar signs $ $ $ $ $ into equal piles of size greater than one, I can’t. 

 

Why do we know that two points on a plane determine exactly one straight line? Having seen straight lines, we can visualize it. Conversely, why can’t we picture a four-dimensional object? (Salvador Dali came the closest – see his Crucifixion (Corpus Hypercubus).) Four-dimensional objects are just as math-legit as three-dimensional objects, but we don’t have the benefit of seeing them, so we find them difficult/impossible to visualize. Similarly, it’s impossible to imagine the next color in the rainbow – the ones we’d enjoy if our eyes could see ultraviolet or infrared light. We humans have an embarrassing lack of imagination! 

 

So, as with experimental science, it seems we learn foundational mathematical truths from experience. However, once those initial truths are determined, then mathematics proceeds quite differently from science. 

 

A coin illustrates the difference. Having observed that both sides of a coin are HEADS, we DEDUCE that when flipped, it will always show HEADS.  Similarly, having all the information they need (their axioms), mathematicians proceed deductively, using logic to jump from one conclusion to another. They are confident that “proved true” means it IS true. 

 

On the other hand, if without looking at a coin, you flipped it 100 times – always getting HEADS, then you might – via induction – become convinced that it is a two-headed coin, even though you will never know for sure.  Similarly, scientists never fully assume the truth of their foundational assumptions. Instead, they acquire knowledge inductively by observing regularities and patterns in nature and then draw hopefully-correct conclusions – a process called the scientific method.  Karl Popper realized that, like the tossed coin, scientific experiments can never prove anything true.  One becomes increasingly convinced, but never certain. 

 

Indeed, consider these historical conclusions of physics: i) energy is conserved, ii) mass is conserved, iii) an object’s length and mass doesn’t change, iv) velocities in the same direction can be added. The truth of all of these were challenged by the brilliant mind of Einstein, and now have now been shown to be wrong via experiments.  

 

Mathematics, historically, also has had incorrect conclusions: i) every line has another which is parallel, ii) every number can be written as the ratio of two integers, iii) if something is true, it is possible to prove it true, iv) if you take some away, you have less. How simple and obvious – but all shown to be wrong! No experiments were needed, just pencil and paper through mathematical argument. 

 

Surprisingly, mathematics and science are also similar in challenging a fundamental truth. Even though they proceed by disparate methods, physics (via Schrodinger’s Cat) and mathematics (via sizes of the infinite) agree that, paradoxically, there exist things which are neither true nor false. That is, the world can’t be neatly divided into true things and false things.  Reeks of  postmodernism! 

 

How neat! Mathematics and science, each in its own way, reveal that our world is rich with wonder and surprise. 

Lowering Expectations: Living in a Fallen World

  

HS #128 2026.3.12

 

Lowering Expectations: Living in a Fallen World

 

It happens all the time. Someone hits a ball (volleyball, pickleball, tennis – any sport with a boundary line) and it’s not clear whether it landed in or missed. So the teams agree to replay it. The repeat clearly misses, and then someone announces, “First one must have missed.” I counter, “No, it must have landed in – after all, we live in a fallen world.” 

 

Many tacitly assume the world is inherently just and good. We are disappointed when it doesn’t work out that way. But, especially if you grew up in the Roman Catholic or Calvinistic tradition, you have been taught since a child that the world is fallen. Why then don’t we acknowledge it? 

 

When I first came to Hope College in 1988, the provost distributed a memo to the faculty about academic integrity. It began with the question: Why do some students cheat? As a naïve newcomer, I replied, “Given the theological foundation of this institution, shouldn’t we instead ask, “Why are some students honest?” As a result of this perceptive comment, I was invited to serve on a committee. Oh well, we live in a fallen world. 

 

Do you remember the scene from the first Indiana Jones movie where Jones, in a hurry to save the girl, doesn’t have time for a manly fight with the swordsman? So Jones shoots him. The surprise is humorous, because we expected Jones to behave justly and fairly. 

 

Why are (liberally-minded) Americans so exasperated with our current President? Because we assume we live in a world where the big kid on the playground uses his strength to defend the weak and promote justice. But any elementary gym teacher will tell you that the big kid is often the bully – using his size for his own selfish interest. Why should politicians and world leaders be different? Why should our President’s attempts to acquire Canada, Greenland, Venezuelan oil, and Gazan beachfront stun us? I’m not condoning; just asking, “Why the surprise?” 

 

Ironically, accepting that we are in a fallen world can lead to better living. C.S. Lewis explained it this way: Two men are confined for a month in a poor-quality hotel. One has been told he was going to a 5-star suite. The second was told he was going to prison. Which will be more satisfied?  

 

Indeed, being content comes from lowering expectations. 

 

Let’s dig deeper. Consider this (morbid) scenario: You have been kidnapped by terrorists and shown a revolver. You are told that in two weeks one of the six chambers will be loaded with a bullet, the cylinder will be spun then pointed at you and shot. Get the idea? 

 

The second scenario is similar except now five of the chambers are loaded with bullets. 

 

My question: Which scenario would be more distressing? I’m not asking which you would choose; I’m asking which would cause more distress? 

 

I’m convinced that I’d be more distressed by the first – with just one bullet. Why? Because if five bullets, I would accept my likely fate, but would FOCUS on the HOPE that I may survive. With one bullet, my focus instead would be on the unlikely event that I am shot, causing distress. Perhaps this is why atheists fear death less than the moderately religious - because they have accepted and come to terms with the reality of no afterlife. They live their lives with lowered expectations.

 

One way of lowering expectations is by realizing that we are not special. Some teachers tell their students, “If only one of you is helped, it will all be worth it.” Each student feels affirmed because they think they are that one exception. (Likely the same reason folks spend money on lotteries. They think they are uniquely destined to win.)  Wanting students to have sober judgement that they are not special, I instead explain that, “I have higher standards - if all but one of you are helped, it will be worth it.”  It gets a laugh. 

 

Shall we end with the wisdom of Jesus? He commended the deceitful servant who, fired by his master, reduced the debts of his master’s debtors so that he would have obliging friends once he was out of work, making the best of a bad situation. 

 

Indeed, Jesus exhorted his disciples to have realistic expectations of human behavior and thus to be as wise as serpents - while as innocent as doves.  How better to live successfully in a fallen world? 

What would Lincoln do?

 HS #127 2026.2.12

 

What would Lincoln do?  

 

Getting to know historical figures, one learns of their foibles and weaknesses as well as their strengths. George Washington, great man to be sure, was stiff and aloof. Ben Franklin had strained personal relationships and was estranged from his son. Adams was described by Franklin as "always an honest man, often a wise one, but in some things absolutely out of his senses."  Jefferson was sometimes disingenuous, attacking his friends behind their backs, but unwilling to confront them face to face. 

 

On the other hand, Abraham Lincoln, whose birthday is today, was a giant – literally as well as figuratively. He deeply understood the U.S. experiment: government of the people, by the people, for the people, but also understood that to make the government work, we the people needed to be guided by our better angels. He had many close friends who loved him and recognized his greatness, and his moral sense ran deep. He was committed to finding truth, studying Euclid’s geometry to learn how to prove the veracity of an argument.  

 

But it is Lincoln’s sense of humor (often self-deprecating) counterbalanced by his melancholy that endears him to me. 

 

When accused of being two faced, he responded, “If I had another face, would I wear this one?”

Debating the short-in-stature Douglass, Lincoln was asked how long a man’s legs should be. “Long enough to reach the ground.” When one of his cabinet members died, an ambitious office-seeker asked Lincoln if he could take the dead man’s place. Lincoln replied that certainly the coffin-laid man would presumably also like to trade places. 

 

Lincoln entertained his friends with humorous true stories. His favorite concerned the Revolutionary War hero, Ethan Allen, who visited England several years after the war. Asking to use a toilet, Allen was ushered to an outhouse where he discovered the British, still smarting from their defeat, had hung a picture of George Washington on the inside wall. Exiting the biffy, Allen announced, “Good thinking, gentlemen. Nothing makes an Englishman shit faster than a picture of George Washington.” 

 

As he bore the burden of leading a fractured country, Lincoln’s humor acquired an edge. Exasperated with the lentitude of Union General McClellan to fight, Lincoln asked, “If you’re not going to use your army, do you mind if I borrow it for a while.” Lincoln admitted, “With the fearful strain that is on me night and day, if I did not laugh, I should die.” 

 

Indeed, melancholy was equally part of Lincoln’s personality. Distraught about love, his friends took his razors for fear of him killing himself. As a young man, Lincoln admitted to a friend, “If what I feel were equally distributed to the whole human family, there would not be one cheerful face on earth.” 

 

Lincoln’s humor and melancholy both emanated from his honest acknowledgment of and willingness to face the truth about the world, while earnestly seeking solutions.  Therefore, I wonder, “What would Lincoln do in our present situation?” 

 

In his article, “We Are Witnessing the Self-Immolation of a Superpower”, Garrett Graff lists six significant ways that the U.S. is presently emasculating itself by ripping away these historic strengths: i) Easy access of immigrants and foreign students to our world-class universities, ii) Generous government support of higher education and medical/scientific research, iii) Broad and easy trade access to and from U.S. markets, iv) Strict adherence to the Rule of Law, 

v) Firm network of international alliances, vi) Independent monetary policy. 

 

Taken together these have given the U.S. unrivaled influence and leadership in the world. But in the past year all have been irrevocably damaged and minimized. Would Lincoln have ideas to gain back the international friendships and respect we have lost and are losing? 

 

What about at home? The violence at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 was not as significant as the violence done to Truth. The Capitol Police are now blamed for it and those who smashed, sprayed and beat are heralded as loving patriots. More recent lies about killings by ICE agents further undermine trust in our current government. “Alternative facts” abound. 

 

These are serious concerns. How would “honest Abe” restore a nation whose current administration has forsaken truth and morality? The U.S. is in urgent need of moral, truthful, Lincoln-styled leadership which challenges us to our better angels. Lincoln declared, “I have faith in the people . . Let them know the truth, and the country is safe.” Join me in living truthfully, seeking Lincoln’s ideal.