A Bridge To Somewhere

In a blatant and desperate attempt to build Obama his own bridge-to-nowhere, John McCain has been accusing the senator from Illinois with asking for $3 million in federal funds to buy an "overhead projector" for "a planetarium" in "Chicago." He did this again during the so-called "town hall" on Tuesday night. The way McCain said it was so drenched in mockery and disdain, he made me wonder:

Am I supposed to be disgusted by:

1. A planetarium (damn those scientists and all their science-y ideas!)?
2. People who live in Chicago? (Were all corrupt you know - or wild-eyed terrorists who want to blow up America - or dangerous black people and their unpatriotic pastors)
3. The fact that an "overhead projector" (see the photo of this particular item below) might actually cost $3 million?
4. A senator who works on behalf of the people who elected him to make science education accessible to everyone - including generations of area school children, yours truly among them? (Actually, both Illinois senators and 6 Chicago-area congressmen - 3 of whom were Republicans - all worked together to bring this request before Congress.) And a senator who works to advance scientific research? (You know, the planetarium's not just a silly tourist attraction, John --- they actually do SCIENCE STUFF there.)

In the end, the folks at the Adler Planetarium here in Chicago are going to have to find another way to buy their new "overhead projector," unlike the folks at the New York and L.A. planetariums, both of which received government grants to replace their aging projection systems. Chicago's is 40-years old and the manufacturer no longer makes replacement parts. Read the whole story and hear how those wacky science guys at the Adler are responding today, in this article from the Chicago Tribune.

Now, granted, a 40-year old anything might seem "green behind the ears" to Senator McCain. I mean, at 40 you don't really even "understand" anything and you have, like, zero experience that matters. 

But, come on now. 

My 16-year old son, who has been pretty excited about this political season, took a pass on the debate last night.

"I'm getting kind of sick of it," he said.

Me, too.

I'm not sick, exactly, of the mocking, sneering, snarling, disrespectful, who-gives-a-damn-about-the-truth, us-vs-them, fear-mongering, hate-swilling, mob-action campaign the Republicans have been waging. I'm not even sick, exactly, that the McCain-Palin campaign has people so riled up that they're yelling "terrorist!" and "kill him!" during the duo's stump speeches. Unfortunately, this is the kind of thing I've come to expect.

What I am sick about is how willing they are to openly talk about how this is their strategy. 

Check out this video from CNN, for example. Reporter Melissa Long confronts McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds about something McCain has been saying on the campaign trail. When asked by a supporter, "When are you going to let the gloves come off?!?" 

McCain said, "How about Tuesday?" 

Long pushed hard when Bounds tried to duck the question until finally he admitted that McCain was going to do his best to help Americans "see who Barack Obama really is" and concluded that Americans have a right to know more about Obama's "relationship with an unrepentant terrorist." Questions still remain, Bounds said, "about how close he is with this guy."

[Nevermind that Bill Ayers is on the faculty of the University of IL at Chicago and received a Citizen of the Year Award from the city of Chicago in 1997 and that Mayor Daley has called him a valued member of the community. You know how Chicago is. (See above.)]

 

The conservative commentators I heard debriefing the debate last night - Pat Buchanan, Bill Bennett, Sean Hannity, etc. - actually bemoaned the fact that McCain didn't come out harder and nastier against Obama. They brushed off McCain's "that one" remark; it wasn't even a little nasty, they said. McCain, they said, needed to talk about Bill Ayers the terrorist and Jeremiah Wright the black preacher and show Americans just how scary this young whipper snapper is. McCain didn't do that, they said. He was too restrained. Not mean enough. And so, they agreed, he probably lost the debate.

They're hoping he gets his mojo back before the last debate next week.

I think they think the only way to win this thing is to get enough people frothing at the mouth at the thought of President Barack Hussein Obama: scary, black, overhead-projector buying, terrorist who wants to teach your kindergartners about sex and kill your unborn baby and marry your sister off to my sister.

And while that strategy is mostly sad. And probably not even necessary. It is also sickening.

Personally, I am hoping that John McCain will wake up tomorrow morning and remember who he is. And that he'll spend these last important weeks talking about the issues that matter. I don't happen to agree with his position on a lot of issues -- the war in Iraq, tax policy, the intervention of the federal government in my personal life and yours, just for starters. But I know he DOES have positions. And I know that a lot of people would agree with him. And I think they are VALID positions worthy of discussion and respect. And I believe a lively, honest debate would do us all a lot of good.

But for that to happen we're going to have to trust each other. We're going to have to see each other as fellow Americans and, just maybe even, children of the same heavenly Father. We're going to have to at least be willing to shake hands with each other. We're going to need to build some kind of bridge to bring us - black & white, men & women, conservatives & liberals, science guys & the rest of us, Alaskans & the gritty citizens of Chicago, us & them - together.

And so I have a proposal.

According to the Associated Press, the original bridge to nowhere - which would have been nearly as long as the Golden Gate and as high as the Brooklyn and which would have connected an island of 50 people to the mainland - would have cost almost $400 million. 

Governor "Maverick" Palin supported it.

And Alaska got the money. Well, a lot of it, anyway. They just had to use it for other things.

I'd like to suggest that the great state of Alaska make a little contribution to my favorite planetarium. 

It'd go a long way towards building the kind of bridge we really need in this country. The kind that brings people together, rather than dicing and slicing us apart. 

You know, from outer space, we all look pretty much the same.

At least that's what those wacky science guys at the Adler tell us.

Comments

[Jon Christenosn]

I find your sarcasm to be particularly partisan and not very helpful for looking at the issues in this campaign. It's obvious who you are going to vote for, but what does this have to do with the "F" word?

Victor Davis puts it well, "Given the faux outrage over McCain's campaign by an assortment of Obama appendages, and according to this logic that the candidate is responsible for the outbursts of any and all supporters, one would hope then that Obama could get ahold of the more ugly group of his supporters, and take the responsibility for them to cool it—perhaps just a word or two from the Senator about reining in their hate speech to a Sandra Bernhard, or a Madonna, or Whoopi Goldberg, or the hundred or so celebrities in Hollywood who have said some rather creepy things, or to Ludacris, or a warning to Rep. Lewis about cooling the bit about McCain's campaign and the blowing up of little girls.

Perhaps at some point St. Obama might say something like the following: "Our hope and change campaign has naturally raised expectations; but I appeal to all my zealous supporters to refrain from character assassination of my opponents. So please—no more photo-shopping of Sen. McCain's picture, or spreading untruths on the Atlantic Magazine website about VP candidate Sarah Palin's last pregnancy. And, please supporters: do not hack into Gov. Palin's email, and do not swarm radio stations to silence Dr. Kurtz. Nor is there any reason to sue to remove my opponent's ads. And above all, my Acorn friends, do not register to vote those who never exited."

Instead of calls to "get in their face" and talk about bringing a gun to a knife fight, or suggestions of Sen. McCain being "confused" or "losing his bearings" from Sen. Obama, perhaps he might offer just a tiny bit of ethical admonition from on high to restore a sense of civility to this election campaign."

Peace,
Jon

KELLY'S RESPONSE:

Thanks for weighing in, Jon.

This blog covers a lot of territory including religion, politics, culture, music, business, and sports. But the overall theme, I guess, has to do with calling on mainline & progressive Christians to find their voice.

We're living at the end of an era when the radical right has been the loudest voice in the room. I believe great damage has been done in our nation and in our world as a result.

Reclaiming the f word means reclaiming it from them for the sake of sharing the REALLY good news about a kingdom in which every wall that separates us from each other and from God has been broken down through Jesus Christ.

If you've been a reader for awhile you know that I am much harder, more often, on my mainline & progressive brothers & sisters than I am on those who hang out over on the right. In fact, my recent book argues that mainline & progressive churches have a lot to learn from them.

But lately, you're right, a lot of my posts have focused on politics. First of all, 'tis the season. To ignore or sidestep the most important thing happening in our culture right now would be in direct contradiction to the incarnational nature of my faith.

Secondly, religion has become a dominant theme in U.S. politics. Right NOW as i write this the McCain campaign is fending off criticism of an invocation delivered at an Iowa rally today by an evangelical pastor who prayed:

“There are millions of people around this world praying to their god — whether it’s Hindu, Buddha, Allah — that his [McCain’s] opponent wins, for a variety of reasons. And Lord, I pray that you would guard your own reputation because they’re going to think that their god is bigger than you if that happens. So I pray that you will step forward and honor your own name in all that happens between now and Election Day.” http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/10/11/pastor-delivers-odd-invocation-at-mccain-rally/

Stepping up to say THIS KIND OF FEAR-MONGERING, US-VS-THEM, HATE-INSPIRING PREACHING, PRAYING, YOU-TUBING, SPEECHIFYING BEHAVIOR HAS TO STOP is, at a minimum, the first step in reclaiming the f word.

And I guess that, in a nutshell, is what I meant for this particular post to do.

Sorry you didn't see it that way.

[Jon Christenson]

I had seen the article before and I thought the McCain campaign had responded:
“While we understand the important role that faith plays in informing the votes of Iowans, questions about the religious background of the candidates only serve to distract from the real questions in this race...."

Not forceful enough?

KELLY'S RESPONSE:

You only give half the response. Here's the whole thing:

“While we understand the important role that faith plays in informing the votes of Iowans, questions about the religious background of the candidates only serve to distract from the real questions in this race about Barack Obama’s judgment, policies and readiness to lead as commander in chief,” said Wendy Riemann, McCain’s Iowa spokesperson.

I'd love to hear what other F word readers think.

[Christopher Byars]

Kelly,
You asked me to post this on your blog, so here I am to continue on...we disagree politically and that is ok, but the assertion that the left has been "too nice" and the right is getting "scarier and meaner" is language that feeds the problem. Politics has gotten in my opinion more and more tabloid each election season in how it is run. In my opinion the greatest amount of "closed mindedness" comes from the left and I can give examples...in my life I have never approached anything with the assumption that all agree with me and my views politically. In my four years at Luther statements were made by professors in class and by students that assumed that all "intelligent" people agree with the left. Even the term "progressive" is presumptuous, as if the "liberal, progressive" agenda is truly "new and untried." The most intolerant people I have met push the "embrace diversity" concept which I have found to be paradoxical, since they truly only embrace those diverse opinions which agree with their own.

Now as far as standing together as Christians against the negative campaigning that we continue to see in every election that means we need to stand together against it even when it is against someone we don't agree with. This happened in one instance that I have seen and it was from the extreme right who stood to the defense of an Episcopal Church and priest that gave a sermon against President Bush and was having their non-profit status challenged by the IRS, don't know of any instance when I have seen it on the other side. We can't cherry-pick our stances as Christians when it comes to standing for what we know to be right. The eighth commandment stands for all of us even when someone may hold a different stance.

The double standard that you are calling for is the problem. You defend your side and take offense when taken, but fall silent when your side does the same. You have been silent on the demonization of President Bush, but stand in dismay when someone you agree with, Senator Obama, is demonized. I would agree with you that it is wrong to demonize Senator Obama and have not partaken of it. I never demonized Senator Kerry and never heard any of my fellow Republicans at Luther demonize him either, but heard President Bush demonized regularly in 2004 at Luther Seminary.

Disagreement is good, even healthy for growth and understanding. The differing views that are held enrich us as a Republic by causing us to continue to temper our arguments and understanding of issues. Traditionally the difference of political views is not so much that one side cares more about certain issues than another, but that each side has a different philosophy on how each issue should be handled. On the deeper issues such as education, welfare, the common defense, and health care each side wants what is best for the country. I believe to continue the "mean and evil" arguments is exactly counter to what we are called to in the eighth commandment and Luther's explanation.

"The Eighth[Commandment]
You are not to bear false witness against your neighbor.
What is this? Answer:
We are to fear and love God, so that we do not tell lies about our neighbors, betray or slander them, or destroy their reputations. Instead we are to come to their defense, speak well of them, and interpret everything they do in the best possible light."

So, when we don't agree it is alright, but the line is crossed when we attach evil intent to the task they are doing. The only exception that I believe could be found is if they are breaking other commandments in their actions (however, a president sending troops into combat does not constitute murder and this stance has been defended scripturally and doctrinally, but genocide does constitute murder if called for by a president).

Well, I know this is a long response for the deeper root of my argument which is that we must, as Christians, live our faith out in a non-partisan view, which, in my opinion is to live out the Gospel by trying to believe that ALL politicians have the best interests of all citizens in mind when they do what they do, but ALL politicians are flawed and sinful and will make mistakes, therefore we must pray for ALL politicians that God may guide them in their decisions and actions.

If we begin, as Christians, to do that and then vote our consciences and respect others who view things differently the divisiveness that we see today could dissipate and in the end we all will find God's hand at work in our government.

On a personal aside it may also help us to be more active in affecting our communities also. Jesus didn't go to the mayors and the government offices expecting them to change things, he went to the people. The Acts church wasn't strenghthened by going to the mayor's house or the emperor, but by living out their faith with the people, proclaiming the Good News, and baptizing all who asked to be baptized...why should we be any different? The Acts church shared all things and no one went without...hmmm....not done by the Roman empire or through dictate, but by choice of the people looking out for one another...why shouldn't we. Wait, then came Constantine and the Christian State was born...hmmm...then we became a protected church and all in the empire were assumed to be Christian...the pope...the growth of the Church, the decline of faith...hmmm...interesting....

KELLY'S RESPONSE:

Thanks for taking the time to write so much and so clearly, Chris. You make some good points.

As I've said, anybody who reads this blog regularly knows that I do, in fact, take on the left --- maybe even more often than the right. In fact, I started this blog one night, angry as heck with John Edwards for what I perceived to be the hypocritical, pandering, and wimpy campaign he was running. At the time, I was an Edwards supporter.

But this has been a particularly rotten political season. And I admit, I have been especially hard on the right.

The truth is: I do believe the meanspiritedness that characterizes our common life has been cultivated by the religious right in this country. I believe that what we're seeing at McCain rallies these days, for example, is the fruit of it. And I believe that the open strategy, articulated by McCain campaign leaders, to attack the character - not just the policies - of Barack Obama is designed to appeal to those voters. It's all terribly sad and frustrating.

We may disagree about all this but I don't think my sharing this opinion is tantamount to "demonizing" anybody.

I just think they're wrong. And I want it to stop.

[Christopher Byars]

Kelly,
One thing that I see as a problem on all secular political and church political sides on issues is the continued move to make people issues. I have been convicted of this view in my faith life, "People aren't issues, they have issues, but they are not issues." As long as we attach issues to people it will always create a mean-spirited political vibe because what many sociologists that I have heard speak on the news and posted in a recent article from The Christian Century on Facebook is that we no longer look at disagreements with the policies and ideals of candidates as personal attacks. This I have seen most true with the left. When I lived in the Twin Cities multiple Kerry supporters flipped me off and cut me off on the highway in 2004, this is not something that I heard of any Bush supporter doing. In 2004 Kerry supporters vandalized RNC vehicles and signs and I don't recall any reports on the other side. So, the meanspirited nature that you speak of has been personally felt in my life. This election year I have not noticed any change and have seen some vandalism in FL, though not as much as I saw in MN, by the left in this campaign.

I think, though, that as Christians we should focus on the fact of the matter that no matter who is in power our mission does not change. Our mission is to bring the promise of Jesus Christ to those that do not know him. What unites us is the fact that we should live lives of integrity and that means to integrity to the values that we are called to. Moving away from getting caught up in issues and trying to make those issues false idols. Anything that we place hope or faith in above Jesus Christ is an idol. For example, as a Lutheran I am first and foremost a Christian or a follower of Christ that finds great comfort in the writings of Luther and Lutheranism, but, no matter what, Christ is always the center of my faith and my faith focus.

Every election season affirms the central fact of faith with me, we place too much emphasis on our political leaders to change the world when we, as the Church, through our Lord are called to impact the world by impacting our communities. You worked next to Dr. Sundberg and one factor he brought out in his talking of church history is how much areas of chaos settled when the churches entered and brought civility and order. I just continue to see the Church give up that power expecting the next great leader to do it for them, either through government mandate or government program.

At one time where medical care was needed the church would build hospitals and clinics, education was needed the churches built schools, colleges, and universities, and so on.

Well, I know this is long, but this is something that I am passionate about, ultimately my desire is to stand above partisanship and just get back to the call we have as a church because what unites us is much greater than the minutia that tends to divide us.

In Christ,
Chris