(ps – I’m going to this!!)

From: Congressional Inaugural Committee <info@jccic.senate.gov>
Date: Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 18:11
Subject: Congressional Inaugural Committee Issues Inaugural Advisory
To: Chris Ridgeway

Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Congressional Inaugural Committee Issues Advisory WASHINGTON, DC – In the remaining weeks before the 56th presidential inaugural, the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies (JCCIC) will be issuing a series of advisories to help people who plan to attend the swearing-in ceremony. The following is a special alert for those people who will have tickets to the swearing-in, but may have questions about getting to and from the event that morning. Because of the large crowds and the potential for inclement weather, those people with special needs are advised to pay careful attention to these details. Timing While the actual swearing-in will take place shortly before noon, the formal program begins at 11:30 AM and the musical prelude and seating will begin much earlier. Security checkpoints will open for ticketed guests at 8:00 AM, and the committee advises arriving no later than 9:00 AM to ensure that you are through the checkpoints by the time the program begins. Screening will end when the program begins at 11:30 AM and late arrivals will not be able to enter the grounds. Getting to the Swearing-In Getting to the swearing-in ceremonies that morning will be very difficult because of the large crowds. In addition to the 240,000 ticketed guests, a million or more people are expected to view the inauguration from the National Mall between 4th Street and the Lincoln Memorial, along with hundreds of thousands of others who plan on watching the Inaugural parade down Pennsylvania Avenue. We recommend planning ahead, but also caution that any plans made in advance should be double-checked in the days and hours prior to the event in case of changes to transportation schedules, street and other closures, and other factors that may impact your travel plans. We also recommend developing back-up plans in case your original travel plans need to be changed at the last minute. The District of Columbia’s inaugural website will have the most up-to-date information on road closures and other travel alerts. We recommend that guests bookmark the site, http://www.inauguration.dc.gov/index.asp, and check it frequently for changing information. A security perimeter will be established around the U.S. Capitol and the parade route on or before January 20, 2009. Subway stations, bus stops, and streets within that perimeter will be closed. Street closures throughout Washington, D.C., will make traveling by car or taxi very difficult. Bridges from Virginia crossing the Potomac River into Washington, D.C., as well as major roadways from Maryland into Washington, D.C., may be closed to all but bus traffic. Following are recommendations on how to get to the swearing-in ceremony: Within 2 Miles of the U.S. Capitol For those people who will be staying within 2 Miles of the U.S. Capitol, walking to the swearing-in ceremony will be the most reliable method of reaching the ticketed seated and standing areas. Be sure to carefully plan your return trip as well – it won’t be possible to cross the Pennsylvania Avenue parade route, except at designated points and Metro will be extremely crowded. For some people bicycling may be an option to get close to the U.S. Capitol. While bicycles will be prohibited within the security perimeter on January 20, 2009, the Washington Area Bicyclist Association (WABA) is working on a plan with city officials to have bike valet stations available outside the security perimeter near the swearing-in ceremonies and parade route. More information is available at: http://www.waba.org/index.php. Beyond 2 Miles of the U.S. Capitol Use public transportation to get you as close as possible to the U.S. Capitol and walk from there. D.C.’s subway system will be running “rush-hour” service all day, but is expecting “crush-level” crowds. Be prepared to wait for space on a train for long periods of time, during which you will have to stand in close proximity to several thousand people. Many Metro escalators will be closed due to crowding and individuals will need to climb Metro stairs or wait to utilize the small number of elevators at Metro stations. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) plans to run Metrobuses on Inauguration Day. Check its website, www.wmata.com, for information regarding routes and schedules. As with any other travel planning for January 20, please allow extra time and prepare a back-up plan. AMTRAK, www.amtrak.com, and regional commuter trains, Virginia Railway Express (VRE), www.vre.org, and MARC (Maryland) Commuter Train, www.mtamaryland.com/services/marc/, will be operating reserved trains on special schedules and are expected to sell out well in advance of January 20. Please visit their websites for more information. Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities There will be no vehicular access or parking in the areas around the Capitol on January 20, 2009. This includes vehicles with special disability license plates or tags. While there will be locations outside the perimeter of the Capitol that will be designated as drop-off points for persons with disabilities, traffic conditions and restrictions may make reaching these drop-off locations extremely difficult. As noted above, public transportation is expected to be running at “crush capacity” and WMATA has informed us that while Metro Access will operate for its regular customers, they do not expect to be able to provide pick-ups for people after events. There will be designated areas for people with disabilities in each of the ticketed seating areas on the Capitol grounds, however these areas are limited in size and available on a first-come first-served basis. Persons in wheelchairs or utilizing walkers should be aware that they will need to move across bumpy surfaces, grassy areas, and possible icy areas (depending on the weather). Other Important Considerations The weather in Washington in January is usually quite cold and often rainy or snowy. Please think carefully about whether you can stand outside in cold weather in a large crowd for up to six hours, and whether you are ready for long delays getting home afterwards. Regardless of the weather conditions, umbrellas will not be permitted in the ticketed areas. Other prohibited items include, but are not limited to: Firearms and ammunition (either real or simulated), Explosives of any kind (including fireworks), Knives, blades, or sharp objects (of any length), Mace and/or pepper spray, Sticks or poles, Pockets or hand tools, such as “Leatherman”, Packages, Backpacks, Large bags, Duffel bags, Suitcases, Thermoses, Coolers, Strollers, Laser pointers, Signs, Posters, Animals (other than service animals), Alcoholic beverages, Other items that may pose a threat to the security of the event as determined by and at the discretion of the security screeners Bring with you any medications that you need because there will be very long delays in getting to and from events. Be aware that it may be difficult to talk or send pictures from your cell phone, according to wireless companies. Please use text messaging to send critical messages.     #### You subscribed to the JCCIC email list at http://inaugural.senate.gov to receive important updates and information about the January 20, 2009 swearing-in ceremony, updates about the website, or press materials about the Inauguration. The JCCIC is committed to responsible information handling and will respect your privacy. We will not share your email address or other contact information. You may opt-out of electronic communication with us at any time.  Our mailing address is: Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Our telephone: 202-224-2228 Add us to your address book

Oh man. Well, this was cool. We waited in line for 2+ hours, got mostly bad pictures (these are the best of a bunch, and I still had to include a lot that weren’t good, but still helped tell the story), and at 5’6″, the only parts of the rally I saw were on Andrew Gates‘ shoulders.

Still cool.

And later tonight: sorta big news… I got a ticket to the Obama rally in Grant Park! Means I’ll be heading downtown with maybe as many as a million people–about 70,000 in the actual security cordoned event. I think I’ll try to twitter from my phone while I’m there… see if I can post a ticker here or something fun like that.

I’ve never posted on abortion, once I’m finished here, I still won’t have. The issue itself is remarkably painful and deserves compassionate, biblical, and thoughtful care.

This post is about Christian political reasoning.

As much as some pro-life voters want to say it’s not, nuance matters on the issue of legal abortion as well as US political office.  I think for me to say this is not to cave or be weak, it is to think carefully.  I say it again:  all-or-nothing arguments are not accurate when it comes to these issues.

Recently, I was forwarded a blog post by a Christian friend who is voting on the abortion issue. The post he cited is by Randy Alcorn, and it began helpfully concerning Alcorn’s interest in Obama as a pro-racial-equality, pro-environment candidate.  And the end of the day Mr. Alcorn says he will not vote for Obama because of the abortion issue.  While I definitely respect his position, I can’t agree with all his rhetoric. Here’s some comments:

Then the sad day came. I checked out Obama’s actual position on abortion and I was demoralized. I found that in every single vote related to the issue he’s favored abortion, its legality and even the killing of children who survive abortion.

Obama is definitely “pro-choice.” This is the Democratic party platform and he’s supported it. I can’t agree with him (or the party) on this issue.

But some facts should be clarified here. The most atrocious: that Barack Obama would allow a baby just born of a failed abortion to die (actually, Randy is stronger and says “kill”). If this is true, Obama is a monster!

Over-strong claims should be questioned from either side, and this one is awfully untrue. It defies common sense that it’s repeated.

Obama did vote “present” (not “no”) on the Born Alive Infants Protection act in the Illinois Senate. It’s also true that he was the only senator to speak against the bill on the floor. Opponents want to frame this to make him look almost evil, or without a conscience. But better put: he was the only senator to take the time to explain his vote. And if you read his explanation on the floor, his concerns aren’t anti-life. They are that he was pretty sure the way the current bill was worded, it would be ruled unconstitutional by the 7th Circuit Court.

We forget that Obama was a constitutional law professor. He has some useful opinions on these things.

In one of many later interviews on the section, Obama further explains that the law was redundant. The current Illinois State law, and explicitly federal law finally signed into law in 2002 already require doctors to give life-saving treatment to babies born viable of botched abortions. Not to mention the hippocratic oath of the Illinois Medical Association. The statue was more a political move than a real piece of legislation.

I’ll stop my argument and agree that I think Obama could have voted better here.  But baby-killing kind of insinuations are powerful images that stick even when they’re more the result of bright paint than underlying substance.  In short:  it’s unfair to demonize this too much.

But Obama is savvy. He wants to attract young voters, including young evangelical Christians who are sort-of-prolife. He knows to say that he favors reducing or limiting abortions.

Can we point out that this is loaded language? By that to mean, the real argument of the sentences lies “under” the actual statement. “He knows to say” implies strong that Barack Obama is lying.

If this is the charge (and this is rather serious), this one must be supported instead of insinuated.

Which is like limiting rather than criminalizing murder and rape and kidnapping and slavery. A candidate could say “I’m personally opposed to rape,” while he has a 100% voting record favoring the legality of rape. And he could say he favors limiting or reducing the number of rapes. But if he actually supports the legality of the hideous crime of rape, discerning people would see through his rhetoric of rape-reduction.

This argument is a logical fallacy. Abortion cannot be = to rape, kidnapping, slavery, etc, because there is no wide-spread controversy on any of these issues. Therefore they must be approached differently. I believe abortion is morally wrong (as with rape of course), but over 50% of the country doesn’t.

Please read me carefully. I’m not saying actual morality is really determined by majority opinion. God only determines (and reveals) the beautiful and awful in his Creation. What I’m saying that it’s a fatally flawed analogy for democratically elected politicians in a pluralistic society.

John McCain wasn’t my first choice for president. But at least McCain’s a hero, he suffered for his country and fellow soldiers. And at least he thinks innocent children shouldn’t be slaughtered, and has consistently voted that way.

The hero language just doesn’t relate. :-7 I agree McCain’s a Vietnam hero. I also am not sure it relates to being a Christian and voting for Obama when it comes to abortion.

McCain has voted consistently pro-life in the Sentate.

Too bad Presidents don’t vote on legislation.

In fact, the President has little or no direct control on abortion in the United States. About the only thing they can directly control whether abortions on military bases overseas are federally funded. More on this in a second.

I am deeply concerned about the one, two or possibly three Supreme Court justices to be appointed in the next presidential term

The best link here would to any site showing George W. Bush as the presidential candidate in the 2000 election that was pro-life, would probably have to pick several judges, and if elected, would overturn Roe v Wade (like a debate transcript).

Let me say more directly: we’ve had a pro-life President for eight years. Has appointed two supreme court justices, one of them (wait for it…) … the Chief Justice!  But has the legality of abortion changed?

My implication is this: the President of the United States doesn’t have the power to end abortion in America. My conclusion is this: this is not what the thinking Christian votes on as a primary issue (an issue? Yes. The issue? Contradicts both logical sense and real life experience).  (Maybe this Doonsbury says it better than I am…)

Again, I’m not saying abortion is not a serious moral issue. I’m suggesting that a political vote for federal executive isn’t the key way to affect it.

If you listen to the candidates, it’s obvious that McCain/Palin would make a concerted effort to choose justices likely to reverse Roe v. Wade and it is equally obvious that Obama/Biden would choose justices most likely to uphold Roe v. Wade.

Here’s where it gets real hard to keep a straight face. McCain in 2000 ran in the presidential race on a platform where he would not seek to overturn Roe v Wade. (example: Guardian article 15 Feb 2000) It’s why National Right to Life was running radio ads against him.  Do we forget quickly? Mr. Alcorn worries that the younger evangelicals might be vulnerable to smooth talk, but I’m not sure if he’s the one being a little hoodwinked. This is Donald Miller’s concern. I agree with him.

Again, I don’t need to disagree with Mr. Alcorn on the moral issue of abortion… just questioning his clarity on the politics of it.

ps – Don doesn’t think Obama is the Messiah.  Neither do I.  Check out him poking fun of his campaign e-mails.

I’m already long, so I won’t go further into the ways that Obama has pledged to work towards the reduction of the number of abortions, or even his thoughts on variety of other essential life-issues that I believe Christians should care about like poverty and war.

My final disagreement isn’t on the topic of abortion. It’s the insinuation that those who vote for Obama are trying to be “cool” or be in the majority crowd. Maybe that’s the case for some. For me, I’m voting for Obama because of his fundamentally intelligent approach to a wide variety of complicated issues both at home and abroad. Especially abroad, because the President’s role has the most direct impact over military and diplomatic issues off our shores.  And I follow church planter Alan Hirsch when he mentions that the world opinion is quite toward Obama, and this really does mean something.

Well, I reach the end of one of my longest posts hoping I’ve been gracious, thoughtful, accurate, and loving.  We’ll see (I’m hope my friends will point out where I haven’t).  But this is honest to my thoughts right now.  I’m a Christian, I believe abortion is part of the moral despair of our society, yet I believe I can consistently vote for Barack Obama.

I love it.  So, some nerdy, politically motivated programmers have now created a Space Invaders aracade game based on lies told by the Obama and McCain campaigns!  Based on PolitiFact‘s ratings (which is a great site, although I more often use Factcheck.org), the site lets you choose a statement you think is a lie, and attack it until it reveals the truth about the matter.

Hee hee.  Go play Truth Invaders (btw – it seems like you’ve gotta use Internet Explorer, Firefox didn’t work for me)

Iowa on 11 Oct:

Before McCain spoke, a Christian pastor offered a prayer that seemed to ask for divine intervention on his behalf. “There are millions of people around this world praying to their God — whether it’s Hindu, Buddha, Allah — that [McCain's] opponent wins for a variety of reasons,” Pastor Arnold Conrad said. “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.”

The McCain campaign said it did not condone the prayer.

What subtle moral code exists that allows thing to slide if they’re only “misleading” or “partial truths?”   I’m so tired of both political campaigns sporting flat out lies.  I desperately want a debate moderator to cut in mid-sentence and say “that’s a flat out lie.”  Please.  It’s not okay.

John McCain… everyone Everyone knows that William Ayers was a member of the Weather Underground in the late 60s and 70s.  They set bombs.  But everyone also knows that William Ayres is an English professor who lectures nationally (including Harvard), has written 15 books, was given a “citizen of the year” award for the city of Chicago, and sits on a number of charity boards because of his work with at-risk youth.

Please stop lying (fear-mongering) by all that you’re leaving out.  It’s okay with me if you tell the story.  But tell the whole story.  It’s so far off, it’s a flat out lie.

Barack Obama… stop pretending 13 minute campaign ads are “documentaries” when they have so many partial facts.  We know John McCain was involved with the Keating Savings & Loan conspiracy in the early 1990s.  He clearly shouldn’t have put pressure on regulators.  But please mention that he was never charged with a crime.  That he was reprimanded by the ethics committee, but was considered the least involved of the five senators.  And still McCain has called the incident “the worst mistake of my life.”

Please stop lying by all that you’re leaving out.  It’s okay with me if you tell the story.  But tell the whole story.  Add the idea that the Keating de-regulation have lead to today’s financial crisis, and we’ve got an insinuation so misleading (McCain caused the financial crisis), it’s a flat out lie.

What makes it worse from both campaigns is that it’s not like the facts are murkey.  Fact-checking is becoming big again (a plus for all of us).  We know you’ve heard the press reports, the documentary evidence.  And yet to quote www.factcheck.org, you do it “again”

There’s a moral component to language.  Stop lying.

• Send an email. You can scroll down for some talking points, but feel free to add your personal touch.
• Breaking the ice can be hard. Start by asking if they saw the debate on Tuesday and what they thought about it.
• Have some information handy. We have one-page summaries of Barack’s positions on various issues. Look for the issues you know are important to your family.
• Share Barack’s speech from the Democratic National Convention or Meet Barack, a video about who Barack Obama is, where he comes from, and what his values are.

—————————–

So I’m getting daily e-mails from both campaigns.  I guess it makes sense.  I don’t see TV ads cause I don’t have a TV, so this is another way to make sure that I can barely come up for air.  I’m a political junkie, and even I want a break now.

I have some strong thoughts on some of the accusations being thrown around recently (“new kind of politics” is like a funny joke that is sorta sad when you realize you had actually hoped for it).

But for now, I found this e-mail from the Obama campaign worth a smile.  It could be taken as maniputalive, but it doesn’t bother me too much, because it’s so dead-on.  Obama has a massive lead with 20-somethings who tend to have politically conservative parent.  Like me, for instance.   Anyway, at the website, you can even watch encouraging videos from other people who had the talk, and are still alive to tell (which is a little odd because at least one of the girls featured is 13 and has braces).

To make the comparison to training in Christian evangelism should be pretty obvious, but I’ll mention it just in case…

Many people know I don’t own any DVDs.  Except, well… all seven seasons of The West Wing.  Though I know he mostly lives in writer-genius Aaron Sorkin’s head—the favorite President of my lifetime is none other than Jed Bartlett, the firey but compassionate economist (there’s part of the appeal) that Martin Sheen sometimes gets mistaken for on the street.

 So imagine my grin when Barack Obama meets him.

On Sunday (28 Sep 08), a small group of thirty-two pastors set up a bait for the federal government.  They used their Sunday sermon to specifically endorse Barack Obama or John McCain for the Presidency, in violation of 1954 IRS tax code that prohibits non profit, tax exempt from intervening on behalf of any political candidate.  Their goal is to bring attention to the issue of first amendment speech being curtailed by the Internal Revenue Service.  Critics say that they are seeking to erode church-state seperation for a chance at political power.

This is a confusing issue and I’m unsure on where I land.  Convincing arguments are made by both sides.  I don’t follow Rev. Barry Lynn’s (American’s United for the Separation of Church and State) cynical prophecy that the “religious right is trying to forge America’s houses of worship into a partisan political machine.”  That’s loaded language that carries more political content itself than concerned dialogue.  And I think it’s answered successfully by Erik Stanley (Alliance Defense Fund), when he reminds that churches on a wide spectrum of “right” or “left” were encouraged to participate.

Church historian Martin Marty writes a column in opposition, but I don’t find his argument—intentionally breaking the law isn’t Christian—at all convincing.  There goes churches illegally helping free slaves in the South and every other counter-culture moral move made by churches in resistance to the law on the books. I’m honestly disappointed by how weak his argument appears to me.

Maybe the best argument against is the same for general separation of church and state:  a slide towards political power for churches has historically, fromt the Constantinian captivity on, been bad for the faith of the churches.  And in a pluralistic society, comprise in governing is required (and I don’t think detrimental to the an inherrently non-power, relational, counter-cultural gospel).

Some Georgetown academics talk throught the possible legal ramifications of the move.

But at the end of the day, I think I find the Alliance Defense Fund’s arguments against the 1954 Johnson amendment have some merit.  I won’t see eye-to-eye with them on abortion and homosexuality being the key moral issues for Christians.  But do we want the IRS dictating pastor’s speech?  The current division allows them to speak on “issues” but not candidates.  I think this is an artificial separation, and rosier than it sounds.  It also allows them to say anything they want once they exit the building… as private citizens.  But theologically I’m not a fan of such a private/professional split.  Not the mention the sacred/secular implications.

At I write… I think I’m arriving at a conclusion.  I support their effort and would support a change in the law, with one provision:  if we could find language to partially ensure that pastors would be speaking on their own accord, and not paid or compensated to do so by political campaigns.