Addendum to "THANKSGIVING"

A word from one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

Addendum to "Are you watching?"

My friend Jason, the one who tipped me off on the polar bear commercial below, also sent me this picture of a poster he came across on the job. I am sensing a trend here...

THANKSGIVING

12 Steps to a better America, starting with an attitude of THANKSGIVING:


Thank God for our men and women in uniform, especially those serving overseas: God Bless you, we are grateful for you.
Hold your elected officials accountable. Never leave them unattended.
Any time you lose hope or become discouraged, remember that past American Patriots have done great things in worse times.
Now is the time to praise God abundantly.
Keep toiling to make this country great, even when we have won a battle. The war is not yet over.
Start every day as if it's your last.
Give generously of your time and your smiles.
Instill in your children an appreciation for beauty, truth, and virtue.
Visit a monument or memorial.
Instigate a discussion of the finer things.
Notice a need and meet it.
Go to libertycentral.org and get involved!

Are you watching?

This post contains some frank discussion and videos that, while apparently appropriate for prime-time television, might make you feel sick.


We don't typically watch much TV at my house, but this Sunday we tuned into the Colts/Patriots and Giants/Eagles games. Besides seeing both Manning brothers bite the dust, we got an earful and eyeful of commercials. And those were just the ones we didn't mute because we were distracted.


Now, we usually mute commercials because they are generally so loud, obnoxious, and, these days, objectionable. Below is a sampling of about four of the worst ones we saw last evening. They range from plain old dumb to suggestive to downright raunchy. 


But first is a commercial brought to my attention by my friend Jason, who saw it the other day and found it not only laughable, but intellectually offensive. It depicts a polar bear swimming away from his melting iceberg, climbing onto a beach on the Pacific coastline, and walking all the way across the continent to hug a man in NYC. The man drives a Nissan Leaf, 100% electric. 





As Jason observed about its absurdity: if the bear can live in the continental United States, as he does quite aptly in this commercial, what does it matter if the iceberg melts? Similarly, how can a wild animal know, and why would it care, what kind of car this man drives? It's looking for its next meal!


Beyond this, as long as 30,000+ scientists maintain that global warming is a scam, why should we accept the premise that the iceberg is melting in the first place?


Again, as Jason astutely remarked, Nissan is clearly attempting to pull at the strings of the bleeding hearts in order to sell overpriced, under-proven (or not at all proven), unreliable technology. If you buy this car, it will make you feel good. At least, when you get stranded because no one ever thought out all of the kinks involved with this technology, at least you can be reminded that you did something to keep those world-trekking polar bears from being stranded.


Next we have a commercial that my husband challenged while studying for an upcoming exam. I was in the pantry doing some reorganization. Hearing him chuckle, I asked what it was about. He said that the claim made by the commercial is flatly contradicted by the basic laws of physics. 


The suggestion is that the braking force on a roller coaster could be converted into electricity and used to power the coaster on its next run (a system Toyota has apparently incorporated into some of its new vehicles). The problem is that, in such a situation as this one, you will never get as much energy out of the coaster as you put into it, due to friction. So, while a nice idea, it wouldn't be able to make an amusement park self-sustaining. Perhaps combined with solar power and other resources the idea could come together, but not as simply and neatly as the commercial suggests.


I'm all for clean energy and finding innovative ways to meet our power needs, but I'm not on the bandwagon bound for blindly promoting "green energy" at the cost of common sense and realism. This commercial simply amounts to another attempt to goad the American public into investing its hopes, dreams, and hard-earned cash into this kind of technology. Beyond this, it is a contribution to the "cult of green" and the worship of mother earth. Beware that we replace faith in God with devotion to snails and polar bears.





Next up: a commercial that disarmingly highlights what the focus of our day-to-day entertainment has become. Watch.





So, what did you think was going to happen there in the beginning? What does that say about what we have been subconsciously conditioned to expect from something as casual as a 30 second TV commercial? And why do we need to see people licking their fingers? Gross.


If you're not sure where I'm headed with this, the next commercial ought to give you a good idea. 





What a... funny... way to sell hamburgers.


But, hey, that's small fries (pun not intended) compared to the next one, which juxtapositions innocent babies with sexual excitement over documentary depictions of animals mating. Or am I wrong?





To say that this is sick is an understatement by my estimation. Haven't we reached a pinnacle of immorality and pervertedness when we are willing to sully the innocence of babies in such a gratuitous way? Oh, here's an adorable little baby who has a naughty little internet habit revolving around wildebeest. Ha. Ha. Ha. Can you send me the link?


If you can even find a television show worth watching, might I suggest that you do your best to avoid the commercials?

Is Heaven here on earth?

One of my favorite musicians is Tracy Chapman, that poet of compassion and craftsman of earthy music who I am pretty sure has had the same dreads for the past twenty years. She is probably one of if not the very first artists I've ever danced to (in my mother's arms as a baby). I love the way she can bend her voice and mold a phrase of melody, but I do not agree with her world view. 


To sum up, Chapman's philosophy seems to be a New Age-y kind of humanism. A do-good, cultivate your karma, have love in your hearts, protect Mother Earth kind of man-centered philosophy. In my estimation, it is not especially what this philosophy is made of that is problematic, but what it lacks. The mission to do good and be loving is one we should all keep in our hearts, and it should also be a priority to take good care of the beautiful planet on which we live (as long as we don't begin to worship it). 


More troublesome than Chapman's implied pantheism, though, is that she doesn't recognize one of the most important truths on which right philosophy is built: that humankind is inherently flawed. That the human race is a depraved, fallen, and ultimately doomed population in need of a supernatural Saviour.  


So when I had my iPod on shuffle today, and this song came on, it started my wheels turning on these things again, which is one of the reasons why I keep it in my queue. While I am a strong believer that we ought to be discriminatory and deliberate about the content of the music we listen to, I think this song is of use to me because it reminds me not only to pay attention to what I am listening to, but to remind me of the Truth.


Here are the lyrics. My reactions are interspersed in red.


Heaven's Here On Earth
by Tracy Chapman

You can look (but you won't find?) to the stars in search of the answers
Look for God and life on distant planets
Have your faith in the ever after
While each of us holds inside the map to the labyrinth (self-esteem boost!)
And heaven's here on earth (really? where?)

We are the spirit the collective conscience (oh boy)
We create the pain and the suffering and the beauty in this world (that is true, but probably not in the sense she means it. We are not the authors of either suffering or beauty, but the agents)
Heaven's here on earth

In our faith in humankind (be careful)
In our respect for what is earthly ("Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth" -Col. 3:2)
In our unfaltering belief in peace and love and understanding (what about our unfaltering believe in the peace, love, and understanding of God? Apart from Him they have no power.)

I've seen and met angels wearing the disguise
Of ordinary people leading ordinary lives
Filled with love, compassion, forgiveness and sacrifice
Heaven's in our hearts (God works through people, but there is no Heaven in the human heart by a long shot. The human heart is sinful and imperfect. If it weren't we wouldn't have to be looked at naked and groped in the airports)

In our faith in humankind
In our respect for what is earthly
In our unfaltering belief in peace and love and understanding

Look around
Believe in what you see
The k(K)ingdom is at hand (Right!)
The promised land is at your feet
We can and will become what we aspire to be (we can do all things through Christ who strengthens us, but I don't have much enthusiasm for what a lot of people aspire to be)
If Heaven's here on earth

If we have faith in humankind
And respect for what is earthly
And an unfaltering belief that truth is divinity
And heaven's here on earth

I've seen spirits
I've met angels
I've touched creations beautiful and wondrous
I've been places where I question all I think I know
But I believe, I believe, I believe this could be heaven (a hope against all reason, unfortunately)

We are born inside the gates with the power to create life
And to take it away
The world is our temple (pantheism)
The world is our church (more pantheism)
Heaven's here on earth

If we have faith in humankind
And respect for what is earthly
And an unfaltering belief
In peace and love and understanding
This could be heaven here on earth (why can't we all just get along)


So the tone of this is quite cheery and hopeful and uplifting, like a big ra-ra "let's go out and heal the world by having faith in humankind" kind of pep talk. But it's actually quite empty in substance. How long have we been hearing this message? And what do we have now? A world scarier, darker, more evil than it has ever been before. I'm not holding out much hope for humankind on this one. I'd much rather see people recognizing their own incapabilities and looking to the all-powerful for the solution. It is probably one of the easiest decisions, and certainly the most attractive, that can ever be made in this life. When so much of eternal significance hangs in the balance, why do we insist on doing it ourselves?


Interestingly enough, if you listen carefully beyond the lyrics to the music, you might hear what I detect: a melancholy note of foreboding.


Incidentally, and also very interesting, I believe that Tracy Chapman's face is one of the most open, serenely soul-beautiful faces I have ever seen. Watch the video below.

And how would you like your personal dignity violated today?

I have listened with great interest over the past few days as the heat over the new TSA regulations and use of AIT (Advanced Imaging Technology) has intensified. From the man who warned an agent not to touch his "junk" and was subsequently thrown out of the airport, to the highly distressed three year old child who was "patted down," to the numerous men and women who claim to have been groped in their groin/breast/buttock areas, both on top of and underneath clothing, countless stories of abuse have now surfaced.


We may expect many more in the weeks to come, and I expect that something drastic will come of it all before Christmas. Something's gotta give, as they say. 


But while the American people protest, vocally and physically, the government continues to insist not only that the technology is not harmful (and there is some controversy surrounding that aspect of it), but that most Americans actually support the new measures. Wait, the government trying to marginalize mainstream Americans by presenting data that paints them as a whacked-out fringe element? That doesn't sound familiar at all.  So, aside from all of the propaganda on TSA's website, what else are federal officials saying about the situation?


Well, for one we have the so-called guardian of homeland security, Janet Napolitano (aka Crazy Lady), saying:


"It's all about security... It's all about everybody recognising their role."


So, my whacked-out fringe element friends, what is your role? Is it to become an unpaid nude model or putty in the government's hands?


I, for one, have had to think about it seriously because I will be flying soon. Now, while there is no guarantee that I will be "randomly" selected to go through a backscatter or millimeter wave, it is a likely enough scenario that I need to be prepared for it. Finding totally repugnant the idea that some stranger, probably a man, would be holed away somewhere looking a graphic picture of my body, I am forced to consider the "pat down." Although I am not happy with the idea of some other stranger putting their hands on me and patting various places I consider private, at least that person would be a woman, and I would have face-to-face knowledge of the situation and therefore more control over it. Remember, pictures once taken are easily kept!


My husband, on the other hand, is more comfortable with the idea of some dude seeing him naked than he is with the idea of some dude feeling him up. That makes sense. Morally, modesty is less of an issue for men than women, and culturally, men have always been more public and communal in nakedness than women (I refer to men's bathing suits, shirtless public appearances, locker rooms, and bathrooms).  


But the point is that this is an absolutely ridiculous thing to have to worry about in this country. This place was founded to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, not the land of the violated and home of the embarrassed. 


The agent that dealt with the don't-touch-my-junk man stated that the passenger gave up a lot of his rights when he bought the ticket. This is impossible under the Constitution of the United States, which protects the right of law abiding citizens to travel amongst the States. You see, if one cannot freely travel, one is not truly free. While the vast majority of Americans are willing to concede that the attacks carried out on our country warrant serious security measures, there is still a line to be drawn between what is appropriately serious and what is an abuse of power. In the end, it may be up to all the conscientious and well-meaning TSA agents out there to refuse to violate the American people in this manner. After all, history has shown us that, in the end, saying that you were only following orders doesn't hold up real well in morals court.


Now, I don't mean to deny that there are plenty of people out there who don't care and don't think it's a big deal. I guess to some extent this is a matter of preference, but if you are not made personally uncomfortable by these options, then I don't fully know how to relate to you personally. You see, in my book the government never has the authority over or ownership of my body that it takes to give someone consent to touch it in this way. Only I have that right. And supporting its institutionalization for the sake of safety (and you've got to be kidding yourself if you think that the security measures implemented in this country are effective) sounds a lot like what Benjamin Franklin warned against.


"Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."


If we don't have the liberty of our bodies, what liberty do we then have?

What's in a name?

I suppose it could be helpful for me to explain why I named the blog (im)moral republic.  I thought long and hard about it before I did, and I chose the name because a) we live in a republic b) it was founded on morality to be a beacon of morality and c) it is, on the whole much less moral than immoral these days.  The design of the title, and the title itself, reflected this thought process to me. 


The bridge behind the title could be seen to symbolize the path that leads either from morality to immorality or back vice versa. I really just chose it because I think it looks cool. 


Since I am founding the character of this blog on the words "moral" and "immoral," I should preface the ongoing stream of thought with a definition of terms, as I learned to do specifically in my sophomore year of high school. 


To quote dictionary.com at length, "moral" means:

–adjective

1.

of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong;ethical: moral attitudes.

2.

expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.

3.

founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.

4.

capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.

5.

conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral): a moral man.

6.

virtuous in sexual matters; chaste.

7.

of, pertaining to, or acting on the mind, feelings, will, or character: moral support.

8.

resting upon convincing grounds of probability; virtual: a moral certainty.

–noun

9.

the moral teaching or practical lesson contained in a fable, tale, experience, etc.

10.

the embodiment or type of something.

11.

morals, principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.

"Immoral" is accepted as meaning generally the opposite. 


Now, all of that is like throwing a generous handful of words at a dart board in hopes that some will stick on the bullseye. Let it suffice to say then, for the purposes of the blog, that my understanding of the concept of morality rests largely on the book of Proverbs (and really the whole New Testament, and really the rest of the Bible). Of course, there will be plenty of opportunities for delving into this in greater detail later.