On Facebook every now and then someone will post a “How many squares in this image?” riddle, and in the comments the answers will range from acurate to ignorant to outlandishly stupid. Today I came across this image:

Thousands of comments with answers from 6 to 18, so I set out to write a little PHP and Javascript program to count and visualize the squares.

For those not sure of the terminology:

• all the shapes in this image are rectangles, i.e. their corners are all 90º;
• however, not all of them are squares, i.e. equilateral rectangles, with four identical sides.

Also, while there are only four shapes in this image which are themselves squares, combinations of two or more shapes also form squares and will be counted as such.

So here we go:

As this demonstrates, there are:

• 6 single, simple squares (1-6),
• 5 composite squares made up of two to four single squares 7-11), and
• finally the whole image is also a square (12),

which makes a total of twelve squares.

Multi-instrumentalist Brackin Kirkland together with his lovely wife Lindsay and their seven children (six boys and one girl) are a homeschooling, musically gifted Christian family who live in North Carolina and have been vlogging on YouTube since 2015. On “Sounds Like Reign” they present music videos to go with their albums (ten so far), and on “Tiny Notes from Home” until recently they shared the life of their family and also interviewed other families.

Sounds Like Reign’s music can also be found on Facebook and Spotify. On their web page all albums can be downloaded for free.

Two years ago they released an album “King Jesus” and I thought this would make suitable listening to accompany the Feast of Christ the King which many liturgical churches celebrate on the last Sunday of the church year, i.e this upcoming Sunday, November 24, 2024.

Here are Links to their other album playlists on Youtube:

For eight years, I have made it no secret that I do not consider Donald Trump qualified to be the head of state and government of the most powerful nation in the Western world—primarily due to his character and temperament—and I have therefore been criticized by many of my American evangelical friends. They claim American politics is none of my business since I am neither a U.S. citizen nor a resident of the U.S. I have always disagreed—sometimes sharply—and insisted that I am very much entitled to have an opinion on U.S. politics and to express it because America, as the most powerful country (at least in the “Western” world), influences all our lives. I have also been a lifelong admirer of America, who has never forgotten that without the decisive involvement of the United States in World War II, I probably would not be living in a democratic country today. Additionally, I grew up in a home funded by the Marshall Plan, so the fate of this country is very dear to my heart.

Unfortunately, my enthusiasm and sympathy for the country have significantly diminished in recent years because I couldn’t understand how a country with around 300 million citizens, about half of whom are eligible to vote, could not find better candidates in the last three presidential elections than Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris—a real indictment. Other weaknesses have also come into sharper focus: the inability to curb the gun epidemic and the resulting mass shootings in schools and elsewhere, the inability to ensure an affordable healthcare system, especially for the poorer and more disadvantaged sections of society, and the increase in racially motivated attacks by police, to name just a few examples.

I have also become severely disillusioned about American Evangelicalism which has been a very formative influence in my life: It is incomprehensible to me how around 82 percent of American Evangelicals could, encouraged by many of their most prominent leaders, vote for a foul-mouthed serial adulterer who boasts of sexually harrassing women, demonizes his political and displays his dehumanizing disdain for people of color, women, the handicapped, members of the LGBT community, and immigrants.

Throughout it all, I never imagined that my very vocal opposition would have any effect on the outcome of the election, and sure enough it didn’t: Donald Trump won the election by a landslide, and if nothing unforeseen happens, he will steer the United States’ affairs as the 47th president for the next four years, thereby also exerting a great deal of influence on the rest of the world.

For a long time, I looked at Trump supporters among my friends, and especially among evangelical leaders, with great incomprehension, and in some cases, I was tempted to break off contact. However, I have since revised my stance on this, especially concerning ordinary voters—though I remain very disappointed and critical of evangelical leaders who brush aside Trump’s character deficits with sometimes bizarre theological arguments (it seems character only matters in political opponents, not in our own candidates).

This lengthy process of changing my attitude is difficult to describe and is probably still incomplete, but on the Monday before the election, and then three days afterward, I came across a few articles that reflect my thoughts better than I could describe them myself and that have also given me further food for thought.

First, there was a lead article in the news magazine profil on Monday by Robert Treichler titled “America Wants to Dream”(4), in which he describes Trump’s appeal to voters:

What is Kamala Harris’s great promise? No, I don’t mean a list of proposals from all kinds of fields, but a big idea that can deeply resonate with 150 million people.

I fear there isn’t one. The only issue Harris addressed in an emotionally stirring way during the campaign is the right to abortion. But that’s not an overarching idea for the entire nation.

Trump has such a promise: “Make America Great Again.” This simple slogan, with which Trump has campaigned for a third time, embodies many motives that create a political sense of identity. The desire for strength, a return to old, disreputable ideas, a commitment to ruthlessness toward opponents, and defiance of moralistic objections…

Trump intertwines his slogan with his numerous character flaws. But the vow to make America great again apparently still outshines all the unspeakable things.

In the same issue, Siobhán Geets and Robert Treichler answer 47 questions about the U.S. presidential election in an article titled “Do You Understand America?”. It begins:

Would you vote for a black woman or a man convicted of sexual abuse, who is also suspected of attempted election fraud and inciting an uprising? You may not have to think long. The trickier question is: Why does the above-mentioned convicted felon—you’ve recognized him by now, it’s Donald Trump—have a good chance of being elected the 47th president of the United States next Tuesday?

Trump’s ongoing popularity and political success are baffling. But there are explanations: It is a fact that Trump recognized the problem of illegal immigration early on and made it a political megatopic, similar to right-wing parties in Europe. In his unique style of grotesque exaggerations, he demonizes migrants as murderers and rapists, even going so far as to claim that immigrants from Haiti “eat other people’s pets.” Nevertheless, even though Democrats have since imposed restrictive measures against illegal immigration, a large portion of the population grants them no credibility on this central issue.

Additionally, the politically charged question of identity politics comes into play. Democrats fight for diversity, LGBTQ rights, and abortion rights. John Della Volpe, director at Harvard Kennedy School’s Institute of Politics and a former advisor to Joe Biden, warns that they are neglecting men in the process. These men increasingly turn to the Republicans, who promote a carefree role model with limited tolerance for patriarchal and sexist behaviors. It’s entirely normal for one half of the population to want something different than the other half.

However, the problematic aspect is that the two halves no longer seem to meet on any level—not even figuratively. Trump supporters believe the 2020 election was rigged, dismiss court rulings, ignore warnings from his former associates about Trump being dangerous or even fascistic. Thus, all accusations from the other side fall flat.

Although Trump himself says outrageous things, such as wanting to use the military against “enemies from within”—meaning his opponents within the U.S.—his supporters dismiss these as typical exaggerations. Meanwhile, the other half of the country shudders in horror.

Similar reflections to these during the past year have led me to try to understand ordinary Trump voters better and to approach them with more tolerance.

Finally, three days after the election Jonah Goldberg’s newsletter titled “Stop Bashing Democracy!” arrived in my inbox. He writes:

And that, in a nutshell, is the grave error people are making. People vote for candidates—any candidate—for lots of different reasons. If you think Trump is a fascist, fine. We can talk about that. But just because you think he’s a fascist doesn’t mean someone who voted for him agrees with you and voted for him anyway. I know dozens of people who voted for Trump. None of them are idiots or fascists or fascist idiots.

This argument works every bit as much in the other direction. You may think Kamala Harris is a “communist” or “Marxist,” etc. Whether she is or not is a debatable proposition in the sense that it can be debated. But if you want people to agree with you, you need to make the argument, not just hurl the accusation. If you’re sure she is a communist, no one can deny you the right to say so—but saying so doesn’t mean everyone has to agree with you. Very few of the 68 million people who voted for Harris did so because they thought she was a Marxist or a communist.

I still believe I am correct in my assessment of Donald Trump, and that Trump’s supporters are mistaken, but I now understand them better, especially since Kamala Harris (just like Hillary Clinton eight years ago) was only a marginally less problematic candidate.

Now, lets jump back across the Atlantic to my country, Austria. Much of what Robert Treichler and Siobhán Geets write can be applied almost one-to-one to our situation, where Herbert Kickl, in my opinion a completely unsuitable candidate, won the most votes in the parliamentary election. Fortunately, he did not receive a governing majority, and no one wants to form a coalition with him, so there is a good chance we will have a coalition government, possibly involving the ÖVP, SPÖ, and perhaps NEOS.

But one thing is clear: if the new government continues with “business as usual”, Kickl will garner even more votes in four years, and perhaps even an “absolute majority”, enough to govern. Blaming it on stupid voters won’t help then either. Because the problem here, as in America (and many other countries), is the same: a political class, an aspiring elite too committed to their own interests and ideological pet issues to care about the concerns and fears of ordinary citizens. It may take different forms in America and here, but at its core, it’s the same.

Footnotes:

• • Note 1: These figures are estimates from 2020 ↩️
  • Note 2: Robert Treichler was born in 1968 in Graz, studied French and philosophy, and has been a journalist with the news magazine profil since 1997, serving as deputy editor-in-chief since 2021. In 2024, together with Gernot Bauer, he published the book Kickl und die Zerstörung Europas (Kickl and the Destruction of Europe) with Zsolnay. ↩️
  • Note 3: Siobhán Kathleen Geets, born in 1984 in Vienna, studied cultural and social anthropology at the University of Vienna with a focus on gender studies, international development, philosophy, and religious studies. She completed her thesis on ladyboys in Thailand and was awarded her degree in May 2008. From October 2008 to September 2009, she attended a course at the Vienna School of Photography. In January to February 2008 and February to March 2009, she conducted field research in Thailand, interviewing ladyboys for her thesis and a radio feature for Ö1. Since 2020, she has been part of the foreign affairs team at profil. ↩️

Recently I acquired a discounted collection of Michael Connelly’s novels[1], foremost among them the more than twenty novels featuring LAPD[2] homicide detective Hieronymous “Harry” Bosch, and I was instantly hooked and spent two weeks binge-reading them.

What impressed me about Connelly’s novels, apart from the fact that he is a brilliant story teller, is the meticulous research which has gone into providing a lot of factual information about the LAPD and other Los Angeles institutions.

Because I find the Wikipedia article about Harry Bosch well-written and informative, I am including much of it here:

1. https://thrillerandhorror.com/product/complete-works-of-michael-connelly/[↩]
2. Los Angeles Police Department[↩]

Taken from Wikipedia for my own reference.

The Austrian Broadcasting news portal ORF Online reports that Qatar has asked members of the terrorist organization Hamas to leave the country, reportedly at the urgent request of the United States.

The report includes this paragraph:

«The recent U.S. decision was partly influenced by the execution of American-Israeli citizen Hersh Goldberg-Polin and five other hostages by Hamas at the end of August, according to a U.S. official speaking to the ‘Times of Israel.’»

In the German original the word here translated “execution” is “Hinrichtung, which like “execution”, describes, in its narrow, original sense, the carrying out of a legal death sentence.[[Regardless of what one thinks of the moral status of capital punishment there is a big difference between a sentence being carried out after a trial an a verdict by lawful authority on the one hand and the wanton killing by criminals and terrorists (not that I think there’s much difference between these two categories) on the other.]]

I consider it very problematic that these two terms, “Hinrichtung” and “execution” is regularly used to describe the illegal killing of people by criminals and terrorists. In reality, this is murder. The killing of hostages is nothing but cowardly murder.

Describing such acts as “executions” gives both the act and the perpetrators a veneer of respectability and legitimacy they do not deserve.

The language we use, as well as the words we choose, is very important.

In my constant search for “clean” reading material to keep me from getting bored in my bedridden state at some point I came across the genre of “Amish romances”. They present life in an Amish community as an idyllic, God-fearing life with a quaint language (Pennsylvania Dutch), marred only by the occasional natural disaster, buggy accident, the quandary of who to court and get married to, and the occasional tension with the “Englische” (the surrounding non-Amish).

On the face of it, that certainly is attractive to me, an Evangelical Christian with some ties to the Anabaptist tradition and a fascination with language, but it very quickly struck me as “too good to be true”.

Not only does wider reading reveal that in many Amish communities and for many Amish people the focus is on tradition and strict conformity to the “Ordnung” (the community’s rule book) rather than on personal faith and discipleship, but of course the Amish, like everyone else, are all sinners, and all manner of sin exist in their communities including jealousy, adultery, failed marriages, dictatorial leadership, domestic abuse and violence, etc., which sometimes even make secular news headlines.

And, as a recent search for “Amish” in Amazon revealed, there is not just the genre of “Amish romances” but also a plethora of books with titles like “Hex and Spellwork: The Magical Practices of the Pennsylvania Dutch“, “Folk Religion of the Pennsylvania Dutch: Witchcraft, Faith Healing and Related Practices”, “Der Volksfreund: Hex Signs, Folktales, and Witchcraft of the Pennsylvania Dutch”, etc. — most by authors with clearly Amish names.

This brings home to me the fact that we should not idealize or idolize any group of humans, for “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

Likewise, we should not idealize any past era, because, again, people have always “sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.”

And everytime we put a man or woman, or a group of people, on a pedestal, they will sooner or later fall off that pedestal and fail to meet our expectations.

Nevertheless, I shall continue to enjoy them, as a welcome counterpoint to the real world with all of its conflicts, division, and violence.

Peter Wehner, senior fellow at the Trinity Forum and a former Republican speechwriter points out some inconvenient facts and asks disturbing questions, but I doubt somehow that this will sway many of Trump’s followers.

If I were an American I could not in good conscience vote for either Trump or Harris come November, and in the absence of a credible and viable third party candidate would simply not vote, but I don’t really have a problem with those who would vote for either one of the candidates as the lesser of two evils–that is a legitimate prudential judgement.

My issue is, rather, with those of my fellow evangelicals (and Christians of other traditions) who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 and/or 2020 because they consider abortion the most significant of all issues, and did so while holding their noses with respect to Trump’s character, and who now, in the wake of January 6 and when Trump has had the Pro Life plank removed from the GOP platform and repeatedly expressed his support for “reproductive rights” and greater abortion access are still Trump loyalists defending their champion and their support for him. Unfortunately this group includes many prominent evangelical leaders (such as Al Mohler, Franklin Graham, Tony Perkins, Robert Jeffress, Michael Brown, and many others) as well as most of my American evangelical friends.

Here are the two, in my opinion most important paragraphs from Wehner’s article:

Now ask yourself this: How could an evangelical who claims to be passionately pro-life vote for a presidential candidate who now promises that his administration will “be great for women and their reproductive rights”? Especially when that person has cheated on his wives and on his taxes, paid hush money to porn stars, and been found liable of sexual assault?

And how can those who profess to be followers of Jesus cast a ballot for this candidate, once the excuse of casting a pro-life vote is gone? For a convicted felon and a pathological liar, a man who has peddled racist conspiracy theories, cozied up to the world’s worst dictators, blackmailed an American ally, invited a hostile foreign power to interfere in American elections, defamed POWs and the war dead, mocked people with handicaps, and encouraged political violence? How can they continue to stand in solidarity with a person who has threatened prosecutors, judges, and the families of judges; who attempted to overthrow an election; who assembled a violent mob and directed it to march on the Capitol; and who encouraged the mob to hang his vice president?

I feel an immense sadness for this once great country which in many important areas increasingly looks like a third world nation and which out of a population of 335 million could not find two suitable candidates for the nation’s, if not the world’s, most important office. Unfortunately neither of the current candidates will make America great again.

And I feel an even greater sadness for that segment of the American church which seems to have lost its moral compass.

A number of years ago, at the height of the Roman Catholic clerical abuse scandal first in the US and then also in Europe (Ireland, Austria, etc) there was quite a bit of tut-tuting among some of us Evangelicals, combined with finger-pointing at the celibacy requirement for Catholic clergy.

In 2017 prominent Evangelical apologist Ravi Zacharias was shown to be a sexual abuser and in 2022 the clerical abuse and lack of safeguarding scandal errupted in the Southern Baptist Convention.

In the past couple of years “The Roys Report” has reported almost weekly about clerical abuse cases (both sexual and other) across the entire Evangelical spectrum in the US[1], from small country churches to megachurches, from charismatic to non-charismatic churches and ministries. Most of these, of course, involved married abusers.

And just like the Catholic leadership twenty years ago, many Evangelical leaders who were tasked with the oversight of these abusive pastors and youth ministers seemed more concerned with reputational and financial damage control than with justice for and pastoral care of the victims.

It’s time we stopped the finger pointing and started praying for a cleansing in the entire Body of Christ, of whatever tradition. Abuse victims don’t care in the slightest whether their abuser professes belief in the “Solas” or in transsubstantiation, or what he thinks of the pope, whether he speaks in tongues or not. The damage is the same, and in all these cases it is the name of Christ that’s being dragged through the mud.

(BTW I am not raising this under some illusion of my own sinlessness or holiness, but I confess that I am utterly unable to fathom how one could commit such acts and then stand up at the front of the church and preach the gospel or handle the communion elements.)

1. I believe that if we hear less of this in Europe the reasons are sociological rather than the greater holiness of European churches[↩]

I have just finished reading “Fatherland” by Robert Harris, a police procederal set in 1964 in a Germany that has won the war. The idea for the book came to him while covering the “Hitler Diaries” affair as a journalist. Here is the synopsis of the book from Amazon:

Berlin, 1964. The Greater German Reich stretches from the Rhine to the Urals, and keeps an uneasy peace with its nuclear rival, the United States. As the Fatherland prepares for a grand celebration honoring Adolf Hitler’s seventy-fifth birthday and anticipates a conciliatory visit from U.S. president Joseph Kennedy and ambassador Charles Lindbergh, a detective of the Kriminalpolizei is called out to investigate the discovery of a dead body in a lake near Berlin’s most prestigious suburb.
But when Xavier March discovers the identity of the body, he also uncovers signs of a conspiracy that could go to the very top of the German Reich. And, with the Gestapo just one step behind, March, together with the American journalist Charlotte Maguire, is caught up in a race to discover and reveal the truth—a truth that has already killed, a truth that could topple governments, a truth that will change history.

It was a fascinating read, with historical actors at a time when outside fiction they had already been dead for varying timespans. The book does not distort history: No historically bad guys were white-washed, and no historically good guys were turned into monsters. The most surprising aspect of the book is that the world seems so far unaware of what has become of Europe’s Jews – they are assumed to have vanished into the vast territories somewhere to the east.

I was impressed with the care the author took with the German words used throughout the book — he’s the first English-speaking author I have come across to use the proper plural of “Autobahn“: “Autobahnen“, not “Autobahns“.

The book became an instant bestseller in the English-speaking world; its reception in Germany was initially rather negative it was widely considered anti-German (Der Spiegel: a “demonization of the Federal Republic”), and no German publisher wanted to touch it; it was published in Switzerland, and only years later the paperback was published by a German publisher. I did not think it was anti-German nor a demonization, but this shows how hard and painful it still is for Germans and Austrians[1]  to be reminded of their guilty national heritage. Eventually a more objective reception prevailed.

I shall not bother to find and watchthe movie version: according to Wikipedia it does not faithfully follow the original, and has a totally different ending.

Fatherland, by Robert Harris, Hutchinson, London, 1992, https://a.co/d/2vJ1Kl8

1. (I explicitly mention Austria here because, contrary to the popular myth in this country that Austria was the first victim of the Nazis, many Austrians were involved in the atrocities of the Third Reich, starting with Hitler himself. One of the main figures in the book is the Carinthian Odilo Globocnik, Gauleiter in Vienna and then SS and Police Leader in the Lublin district of the General Government (Poland).[↩]