Barnbrook’s “Pray” Repurposed for National Day of Prayer

I found this image today, by chance, when I was surfing the Reason Project:

Jonathan Barnbrook's "Pray," created in 1992 to oppose the Gulf War

It is a poster created by British artist Jonathan Barnbrook. This is from the artist’s website:

We wanted to comment on oil as the reason for military action. I used Saddam Hussein’s dubious justification–a war of  christians against muslims. Therefore Jesus, rather than a halo of goodness, has a Shell oil logo halo.

Good stuff. I thought it an image appropriate for America’s National Day of Prayer, which was today. Does it shock you that our country, which supposedly keeps church separate from state, in fact does not? Well, it should.

I’m perfectly willing to support everyone’s right to pray to whatever god they choose, but I am not willing to sit idly by while Congress mandates a day of prayer and the president annually acts as chief muezzin, exhorting his people to “pray in thanksgiving for our freedoms and blessings and to ask for God’s continued guidance, grace, and protection for this land that we love.”

That last quote, by the way, was from our beloved Barack Obama. That’s right, Barack Obama. Of course, Public Law 100-307 commands him to issue a proclamation asserting the National Day of Prayer, and today he fulfilled his duty. Here is the full text (from the White House website):

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

———————————————-

For Immediate Release May 7, 2009

NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER, 2009

- – - – - – -

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

Throughout our Nation’s history, Americans have come together in moments of great challenge and uncertainty to humble themselves in prayer. In 1775, as the Continental Congress began the task of forging a new Nation, colonists were asked to observe a day of quiet humiliation and prayer. Almost a century later, as the flames of the Civil War burned from north to south, President Lincoln and the Congress once again asked the American people to pray as the fate of their Nation hung in the balance.

It is in that spirit of unity and reflection that we once again designate the first Thursday in May as the National Day of Prayer. Let us remember those who came before us, and let us each give thanks for the courage and compassion shown by so many in this country and around the world.

On this day of unity and prayer, let us also honor the service and sacrifice of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. We celebrate their commitment to uphold our highest ideals, and we recognize that it is because of them that we continue to live in a Nation where people of all faiths can worship or not worship according to the dictates of their conscience.

Let us also use this day to come together in a moment of peace and goodwill. Our world grows smaller by the day, and our varied beliefs can bring us together to feed the hungry and comfort the afflicted; to make peace where there is strife; and to lift up those who have fallen on hard times. As we observe this day of prayer, we remember the one law that binds all great religions together: the Golden Rule, and its call to love one another; to understand one another; and to treat with dignity and respect those with whom we share a brief moment on this Earth.

The Congress, by Public Law 100-307, as amended, has called on the President to issue each year a proclamation designating the first Thursday in May as a “National Day of Prayer.”

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 7, 2009, as a National Day of Prayer. I call upon Americans to pray in thanksgiving for our freedoms and blessings and to ask for God’s continued guidance, grace, and protection for this land that we love.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this seventh day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

BARACK OBAMA

President Barack Obama signs the National Day of Prayer Proclamation on May 7, 2009. Joshua DuBois, Director of the infernal White House Office for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, looks on. Official White House Photo by Pete Souza.

Although I am happy with the president’s inclusive language, the very fact that an American president would urge me to pray through an official proclamation gives me pause. And the president probably unknowingly echoes the arguments of religious conservatives when he places the roots of the National Day of Prayer in 1775. Such an old and established religious tradition must not be easily discarded, they argue.

And so I am reminded of the appropriateness of Barnbrook’s “Pray.” Jesus’s eyes direct us to the American flag beneath him.People in government constantly appeal to God, constantly interpret God’s will for us, constantly give their actions the veneer of sanctity.

Are we to be a nation of Christians? Are we a Christian nation?

No, we are neither.

We are, despite the president’s sops to the religious right, “a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.” Secular, democratic values, that is.

Stop the Somali Pirates

Enough is enough. For years, pirates from various coastal cities and towns in Somalia have been making quick forays into the Gulf of Aden to raid merchant vessels. They kidnap the crews to demand ransoms, sell the cargo, and seize and sell the smaller vessels. They have often been successful, with spineless governments and helpless companies agreeing to hand over millions of dollars.

Somali Pirates on October 8, 2008. U.S. Navy photo.

It is a multinational problem, with the United States, the European Union, Iran, France, Russia, India, and other nations sending ships to patrol the vast swathe of ocean where the pirates operate.

The United Nations Security Council has authorized other nations to patrol the Gulf of Aden, which lies between Somalia and Yemen.

Pirates have seized a Saudi oil tanker and a Ukrainian ship loaded with Russian tanks bound for Kenya.

Piracy has even caused the Chinese to send two destroyers and a supply ship to the Gulf of Aden to help defend its vital supply line to Middle Eastern oil and African raw materials. Seven Chinese vessels had been attacked and one had been captured, its crew held hostage.

What has captured everyone’s attention recently has been the raid by four pirates on an American merchant ship, the Alabama, that had been transporting humanitarian aid. Its crew had managed to capture one hijacker, who they tried to exchange for their captain, who had been taken hostage. The Americans freed their captive, the hijackers reneged.

The American captain, Richard Phillips, is still being held. He made a daring attempt to escape, diving into the ocean, but was recaptured by the pirates. They want $2 million ransom.

American officials had been negotiating with Somali elders from the city of Gara’ad, but negotiations reportedly broke down after the elders refused an offer to release the pirates into the custody of the Puntland government in exchange for the captain’s release. Puntland is a semiautonomous region in northeastern Somalia.

There are currently about 250 hostages being held by Somali pirates. This piracy clearly must stop and the United States should take a leading role.

The response thusfar has been one of restraint: the United States and other nations have merely stepped up patrols, usually with mandates not to fire on Somali pirates unless attacked. This is frustrating.

Should the United States respond as it did during the Barbary Wars of the early 1800s, when it sought to stop North African piracy by raids on the Barbary states?

In a word, yes. It is time for more aggressive multinational military action.

In an article about the lessons from the Barbary Wars, New York Times columnist Jeffrey Gettleman writes that “any effort to wipe out Somali pirate dens like Xarardheere or Eyl immediately conjures up the ghost of “Black Hawk Down,” the episode in 1993 when clan militiamen in flip-flops killed 18 American soldiers. Until America can get over that, and until the world can put Somalia together as a nation, another solution suggests itself: just steer clear — way clear, like 500 miles plus — of Somalia’s seas.”

His proposed solution–getting out of the pirates’ way–is untenable. Billions of dollars in trade are funneled through the Gulf of Aden every year. This is why unarmed merchant ships are such a tempting target. And now Americans are paying the price.

The State Department’s response has been flaccid. The Obama administration seems flummoxed. We really must show more leadership than that.

I advocate aggressive, systematic targeting of pirate vessels operating in the Gulf of Aden. Airstrikes should be conducted against clearly identifiable pirate targets. Elite units should be sent to harass and destroy pirates and to free hostages, but no land should be taken and held.

This should be done by all nations that have a stake in the free flow of trade and aid around the Horn of Africa. It might be an unprecedented opportunity to cooperate militarily with Puntland, Russia, and China on a scourge that effects each of these countries.

The goal should be to make it unsafe for pirates to operate in these waters. The United States, alone, should not attempt nationbuilding in Somalia, however. The task is too great; the cost too high. We should not station troops there or set up bases.

We should make the Gulf of Aden a very poor place for pirates to do business.

Obviously our troops could not stay in the Gulf of Aden forever. That’s why the nations involved in this endeavor should set up a permanent force, and a permanent procedure, for securing the Gulf.

Each of these nations together should devise ways to ameliorate the poverty and disorder that is the root cause of fishermen turning to piracy. This should be initiated immediately with a multinational summit on the issue.

Furthermore, merchant vessels should be authorized to be armed when operating in the Gulf of Aden. Most are now just big, helpless floating targets.

These actions, taken together, would go a long way to reducing Somali piracy.

Why am I, a Democrat, advocating military intervention when I so strongly opposed the Iraq war? Because Iraq was a canard, a unnecessary war dreamed up by a foolish, deluded administration bent on blaming Saddam Hussein for the attacks of September 11.

Because there is a place for military action in the toolkit of ways to deal with global problems. Military power should be used sparingly and multilaterally, and only when a clear objective can be achieved with a minimal loss of life.

The Somali piracy situation, in contrast to Iraq in 2003, is a real danger. It is a problem that can be dealt with firmly, decisively, and with a relatively low level of force. Enough already.

The Wired President

You’ve got to love Barack Obama. Okay, I can hear some of you “drill baby drill” types objecting. But listen, we’ve gone from a president who could not pronounce the word nuclear to someone who produces slick fireside chats like this one, his latest:

See what I mean? He inspires confidence. And his forays into the web are turning President Obama into seemingly the most accessible president since Lincoln, who used to talk to virtually to everyone who showed up.

Obama’s weekly video addresses can be found at www.whitehouse.gov. You can download it as a podcast, too. I used to listen to Obama’s podcast when he was a state senator from Illinois. He published only a few, and ditched the podcast when his schedule evidently got to busy, but he has retained his familiar style: the particular way he has of making his listeners feel that is one of them, not an elite.

He’s got a blog, too, at whitehouse.gov/blog/. Sure, it’s nothing more than a less formal press release written by staffers, but it’s worth reading. And the photos are gorgeous. Those White House photographers know their stuff.

Then there was his online town hall meeting held on March 26.

I was one of the 90,000 people who submitted questions to the president. Here’s the way it worked: you logged onto whitehouse.gov and could submit questions in one of several predetermined categories, such as education, jobs, and healthcare. You could submit your own questions, and you could vote on other people’s questions. The president gamely vowed to answer the most popular questions based on the popular vote.

There seems to have been an organized campaign by pot smokers to ask the question why he doesn’t legalize marijuana. The president didn’t sidestep the issue, he commented on it right away, dismissing the idea of legalization. There were also dozens of silly questions about legalizing online gambling. And then there were those who simply used the event as a way to bloviate.

The idea of an online town meeting was smart. For the president, it provided a safe, scripted environment (he was in a room packed with people largely sympathetic to his administration) and the less safe, unscripted questions from people participating online.

But the best aspect of the meeting was just this participation. Visitors felt like they had a stake in the process: the could submit content, vote on others’ content, and maybe, just maybe, have the president read their question on the air. A brilliant strategy.

Soon all this online civic engagement will be old hat. Even our state senator, Tony Strickland, is dipping his toe in the water (awkwardly, unconvincingly, but nevertheless):

So where does this leave us? In a brave new world. Although posting videos, podcasts, and legislation online does provide some measure of transparency, the politician, be he Barack Obama or Tony Strickland, still controls the message.

But that’s why we have people like bloggers, or, even better, journalists. If only newspapers weren’t dying out.

This Week in Conejo Valley Politics, March 29, 2009

It was wrong of you to fire Geoff Dean, said the Civil Service Commission to Ventura County Sheriff Bob Brooks. The sheriff fired Dean for preparing to run for Brooks’s office when Brooks retires in 2010. Dean gets back pay and is the apparent frontrunner in the race.

There is a special election on May 19. It’s about the California budget. Most people don’t like the ballot measures and will vote against them according to a recent poll. This will disappoint the governor.

Californians are not happy: 77% said the state was headed in the wrong direction, 80% disapprove of the legislature’s performance, and 57% disapprove of Governor Schwarzenegger’s performance. Perhaps this is why 81% of people support Proposition 1F, limiting legislative pay during deficits. It’s the economy, stupid.

In a completely unrelated story, Governor Schwarzenegger said he would not run for political office again, since the Constitution forbids foreign-born presidents. Republicans were relieved.

Most drugs sold in Ventura County come from Mexico, say law enforcement officials. Perhaps Rush Limbaugh should buy a sombrero and move south, closer to his suppliers.

The Ventura County Supervisors graciously voted to accept $2.7 million of Barack Obama’s stimulus money this week. It will be used to buy up houses that have been foreclosed and sitting empty. They will be sold to lower-income and middle-class people. Thanks for help Ventura County, Mr. President.

Stimulus money might save police and firefighter jobs in Ventura, but only if they are still around. The Ventura City Council voted to use reserve funds to keep the officers and firefighters employed. Mayor Christy Weir, pinching pennies, voted against it.

Evangelical apocalypse enthusiasts infiltrated the military and George W. Bush’s White House, said filmmaker Michael Wilson during a screening of his movie Silhouette City in Thousand Oaks. They don’t like gays and want to “reclaim the nation for Christ.”

The Year in Review

It has been a bittersweet year for the Conejo Valley. We’ve seen the worst—a crippling downturn in the housing market, a rash of store closings, a sharp increase in unemployment, the reelection of Elton Gallegly and Audra Strickland, the election of Tony Strickland, the passage of antigay legislation—and we’ve seen the best—the election to the presidency of Barack Obama.

Only one mark in our favor seems trifling, pitiful, laughable. But it is not. The nation can always and forever be proud to have elected an African American to the highest office in the land. The Democratic party can always be proud that it was the first party to successfully run an African American candidate. But most of all, the American people can never cease to be proud of what it has accomplished by the election of this man to the White House.

We have rejected eight years of regressive policies, economic mismanagement, willful ignorance, and petulant statesmanship. We have accepted in its place a new openness. We have confirmed America’s place at the standard bearer of liberty, as a place where the Constitution, not a muddled theocratic conception of the world, is the highest source of law. We have reclaimed our rightful place among the community of nations.

Barack Obama, there is a lot on your shoulders, but we believe in you. Do not ever be discouraged. There is a nation depending on you.

There was a telling few seconds of video on the NBC Nightly News the other night. The story dealt with California’s fiscal crisis and Republican obstructionism. A brief snippet of video showed Tony Strickland in the Senate chamber lethargically poking away at a Blackberry while the important business of the state passed him by. His answer to the budget crisis was a simple “no.” No is not a responsible answer. No simply abdicates responsibility to someone else. No is not leadership.

It would be easy at this point to bemoan the loss of Hannah-Beth Jackson to Strickland in the narrowly contested Senate race. But what matters is where we go from here. We have a budget; there is still much work to be done. So Democrats lick the wounds they’ve suffered from during the last year, but  can be confident in the knowledge that they have won the fight—and that their good work will continue to invigorate our nation.

The Ups and Downs of Barack Obama

Senator Barack Obama fired up a crowd of an estimated 6,000 people in Santa Barbara today.

 

This evening, Santa Barbara television station KSBY ran an article and posted this video about the presidential candidate’s visit. Pitifully, the Santa Barbara News-Press, pariah of South Coast newspapers, had nothing on its front page about the visit tonight. Neither did the Ventura County Star.

 

The following quotes are from the KSBY article and video:

 

“I really think he has the power to change the country through inspiring millions of people like myself,” said supporter George Corbin.

 

Another supporter, James Johnson, said, “I think it’s really about changing the system, and the fact that he really understands that inspires me a lot.”

 

Obama’s comments seemed to strengthen these views: “If you’re looking for a president of the United States of America, then don’t just bet on this campaign, believe in yourself.”

 

I trust we’ll get better reporting of the event tomorrow morning.

 

Tonight, Obama attends a fundraiser at Oprah Winfrey’s home in nearby Montecito.

 

Today, the Los Angeles Times ran the puzzlingly poorly edited article, “Obama: A Fresh Face or an Old-school Tactician?” It does not paint a flattering portrait of Obama in the rough-and-tumble Chicago political scene.

 

He was ambitious, says the article, citing a staffer, Cynthia K. Miller, as saying Obama had told her he planned to be president. This was in 1995.

 

Among other things, the article implies that Obama had directed state money to a nonprofit run by Yesse Yehudah as a payment-in-kind for a series of donations to his failed campaign for the U.S. House of Representatives.

 

The article describes how Obama helped black-owned investment firms get money from the state pensions funds and then received large campaign donations from them, particularly from Ariel Capital.

 

Another odd incident occurred when Obama bought a $1.65 million house in Chicago. The seller of the house also wanted to sell a small parcel of land along with the house. Antoin Rezko is an early financial supporter of Obama who was recently under federal indictment. His wife bought the land and later sold it back to Obama, who has now transferred it to his lawyer. Obama admitted his involvement in this affair was“boneheaded.”

 

So, our hero does not have completely clean hands. This is disheartening. But does Hillary? Does John Edwards? Does any politician? Should we plug our noses and hope for the best?

 

Certainly, Obama, Clinton, and Edwards would all be preferable to any Republican currently on offer. At least our candidates would not trample on the Constitution as the present president has done. And luckily, the GOP probably does not have the courage to choose Rudolph Giuliani as its candidate, he’s too liberal on social issues, after all, and secretly tolerates gays. Therefore the Republicans’ candidate will lose the election handily.

But I am tired of the same old politician, the type that does not understand that political office is a sacred public trust, that no portion of this can be bought and sold. I had hoped Obama was not one of these. Is all of this blown out of proportion? I certainly hope so.