A story is told about a man sitting next to an attractive woman on an airplane and asking if she would be willing to sleep with him for $1000. When she rebuffed his offer with disgust he raised the offer to $10,000. When he raised the ante to $100,000 she reluctantly agreed to the proposition. He then rather sheepishly told her that he really did not have that kind of money so would she follow through on the bargain for $100. In absolute shock she practically screamed in his face, “What kind of woman do you think I am?!” He simply responded, “We’ve already determined that, now we just haggling over the price.”

A second story is told about a speech being given at Harvard University (I believe it may have been by Chuck Colson) and after mentioning ethics numerous times a student allegedly stood and shouted in protest, “Whose ethics?” In the pluralistic society in which we live that is a pretty important question. As a Christian I am going to suggest that ethics are based in the Scriptures which certainly would be understood as an objective and absolute standard. If someone does not accept that as a standard then another measuring stick will move into the vacuum. So, assuming that ethics are important, which I think most would agree that they are, we must have some basis for them.

Some individuals would fall into the Bertrand Russell school of thought that right and wrong are determined by feelings. Others may agree that society sets the standard for what is considered ethical behavior–what might have been considered unethical 10 years ago may or may not be considered so today. At least one of the prevailing methods would be the ever popular “the ends justify the means.” We just saw a recent example in the political world. While it has been common practice for quite some time in Washington, DC, the “buying” of votes in favored legislation seems to be reaching a deafening crescendo. However, we have now come to a place where it is a status symbol to be celebrated.

According to “The Christian Science Monitor” on November 24:  “On Saturday, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) of Louisiana was pressed by reporters on whether she had cast a vote with Democratic leadership on healthcare in exchange for $100 million in federal aid to her state. She seized the opportunity to correct the record. ‘It’s not $100 million, it’s $300 million, and I’m proud of it and will keep fighting for it,’ she told reporters after a floor speech announcing her support of a vote to begin debate on healthcare reform.” I think people on both sides of the political aisle would agree that “buying votes” would fall into the category of unethical (and I am certainly not implying that this does not happen in both political parties–it certainly does–but this certainly is one of the most public examples). I also have a feeling that the perceived rightness/wrongness of this behavior may be influenced by how important one considers the end result to be.

So once again–”Whose Ethics?”

Pastor Jeff

> Climategate e-mails sweep America, scuttle Cap & Trade
> Five Aussie MP’s resign in disgust over carbon tax
> Rigging a Climate ‘Consensus’   

   Adirondack Citizen says: Anthropogenic Global Warming theory has been completely discredited yet the Adirondack Council, which purchased 3,000 ‘carbon offset’ credits through the Ridiculous Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), continues to peddle ‘Carbon Reduction Certificates’ on its website (makes a ‘great’ Christmas gift!) 
   Talk about passing worthless paper! (Not that it ever had any value to begin with.) If Adirondack Council doesn’t remove this scam from its website immediately it will deservedly see the organization’s credibility suffer. That would be a shame for the Adirondacks.

Romans 12:9-21 (New King James Version)

Behave Like a Christian

⁹ Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good. ¹⁰ Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another; ¹¹ not lagging in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord; ¹² rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly in prayer; ¹³ distributing to the needs of the saints, given to hospitality.
¹⁴ Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. ¹⁵ Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. ¹⁶ Be of the same mind toward one another. Do not set your mind on high things, but associate with the humble. Do not be wise in your own opinion.
¹⁷ Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. ¹⁸ If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. ¹⁹ Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, butrather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,”^[a] says the Lord. ²⁰ Therefore

“ If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
If he is thirsty, give him a drink;
For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head.”^[b]
21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Ah….the old hypocrisy…the biggest thing I have to say today is examine yourself. I myself fail to do that often I hate to admit. Are you walking the walk and talking the talk? Examine yourself. If you go to St. Mark’s D.C., you can find a self-examination guide in the front lobby area.

God bless.

Pray for those who are spreading Christ’s word and love, and for those striving to find Him.

Marina

Please keep the following in your prayers:

Mike Ibrahim

Abouna Paul and Sherry Girguis

My family

(This was originally written in April, 2009, but in light of the newest scandal involving Carrie Prejean, I think it fitting to publish it again. Let the tree be judged by its fruit.)

A woman stands nearly naked before many spectators, so that a homosexual, among others, can judge her “beauty” by the world’s false standards. She then says homosexual marriage is wrong. My sister in Christ? Not necessarily—let’s judge righteous judgment.

Since when do Christians go to the world to parade their dying flesh about on a stage, encouraging men to lust, and young women to covet, admire, and imitate what is evil?

Since when do whorish women become the heroes of Christendom?

Since when do we applaud and congratulate women—who are presently and unashamedly disobeying God’s will for women—for “defending the faith,” rather than rebuking them in love, and showing them the things that please the Father?

Has the church of Jesus Christ sunk so low? Is there no discernible difference between what is good and evil anymore? “Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean…” (Ezekiel 2:26)

Is Carrie Prejean a defender of the faith? Well, that depends. Are we talking about the faith of Jesus? Or some other faith that is rooted in tradition and personal opinion? Here are Carrie’s words:

“Well, I think it’s *great* that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I *think* that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anyone out there, but that’s how I was raised, and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman.”

So according to Carrie, it’s just wonderful that Americans get to choose if they want to marry the same sex or the opposite sex! And she means no offense, but she was RAISED to believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

Let me remind those who love God’s Word that homosexuality is not something we “can choose” or not choose without consequence. It is a judgment of insanity sent by God on those who worship the created being (like those who watch beauty pageants, for example) more than the Creator (Romans 1). It is also a one way ticket to damnation (I Cor. 6:9-10) unless the homosexual repents and turns to Jesus Christ in faith.

Any good Muslim, Jehovah’s Witness, or Catholic could have given the answer Carrie gave!

Carrie was apparently raised to believe in biblical marriage, but not raised to believe in biblical modesty. Her traditional Christianity allows her to cherry pick her truths according to her own desires. Her opinion is that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Her opinion is also (apparently) that women who profess to be Christ’s do not have to turn away from the sin of immorality, and cover their bodies modestly as befits a Christian. She has apparently decided to avoid these Scriptures:

“In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.” (I Tim. 2:9-10)

Too bad the deceived are so busy giving this misguided woman applause, and not busy helping her to see the error of her ways. It’s pretty hard to stand up for Jesus with no clothes on, ladies. Get with Jesus a little while, and He will make this very plain to you.

A harlot is known by her dress, which is worn to purposely ensnare men (Proverbs 7:10). So please spare me the “people have differing views of what modesty is” line, which is an unacceptable excuse being used to justify the wicked. Please don’t write me and tell me that bikinis are acceptable public clothing for Christian women, unless you are willing to wear your underwear to church this Sunday or to your next Bible study. The presence of water does not baptize harlotry and make it acceptable! Even in cultures that instinctively wear more clothing than Americans, a harlot is known by her choice of clothing. Also, please notice in Proverbs chapter 7, that the harlot can be very religious and have a “form” of godliness; but by her dressing to entice unstable souls, she proves herself a spiritual murderer—”yea, many strong men have been slain by her.” If the strong men need beware, what will happen to the weak men?

As a Christian, our first commandment is to love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. Pretty hard to do while we are wowing the crowds with our flesh, isn’t it? My friends, NO FLESH should glory in His presence! (I Cor. 1:29) That’s pretty clear, isn’t it? We are either sowing to please our flesh, or sowing to please the Spirit. We are not doing both at the same time.

The second commandment is to love our neighbor as ourselves. Are we (ladies) loving men when we strut about half covered in front of them? Are we not concerned about their eternal souls? Are we not concerned about our own? Are we concerned about their wives and their daughters? Or are we only concerned with climbing some ladder of vain self-importance in the eyes of this idolatrous world? Do we think we can play the harlot and escape the wrath of God?

There is a reason God COVERED Adam and Eve’s nakedness when they became sinners. There is a reason we will not return to the “naked state” even in heaven. We will be fully clothed. There is a reason He threatened idolatrous Israel with “uncovering her nakedness.” There is a reason that many pagan tribes that turn to Christ suddenly decide to wear clothes. And there is a reason Americans, who run after idols—like “beauty” queens—have a love affair with nakedness. And there is a reason the professing church doesn’t rebuke this wickedness, but instead praises it, displaying its own hypocrisy for all the world to see. She knows not that she is “wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked;” and that she needs to go to Jesus to receive “white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear.” (Rev. 3:17-18)

I can no more commend Carrie Prejean for standing by her opinion, than I can commend Perez Hilton for standing by his. To do so would be hypocritical. The only opinion that matters is God’s “opinion.” Woe is me if I train my children to reject homosexuality, but to at the same time embrace the immoral behavior of the religious prostitute!

Please hear me: I am not trying to hurt Carrie Prejean. IF she wants to follow Christ, let her “that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.” (2 Tim. 2:19) Let her ask the LORD how she can make her body a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to Him. Let her seek out older women of faith who will show her a more excellent way. Let them teach her not to glory in her flesh, which is a fading flower, but to “let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.” (I Pet. 3:4)

I lay the blame for this hypocrisy at the feet of the church, which has no discernment to see that this woman is hell-bound unless she repents of her idolatry and wanton, fleshly ways. Dare we make a hero out of a person who is so blindly leading others into sin? All this little charade between Carrie and Perez does is further blur the line between good and evil. Homosexuality=Bad, Promiscuity=OK? NO! Both ways lead to death!

Carrie Prejean has become a facebook hero for her stand against homosexuality. I have an unsaved close relative who also believes men should not marry men. Does this make him a hero? No, my friends. The unsaved judge unrighteous judgment. They have their OWN standard of right and wrong. They might think pornography is OK, but rape is wrong. They think drunkenness is OK, but getting high on drugs is wrong. And they think homosexuality is wrong, but immodesty and lifting oneself up as an idol to be worshiped by lust-driven crowds is OK.

If Carrie wants to be taken seriously as a Christian, she needs to obey Christ and his Word by turning from her OWN wickedness, dressing herself as befits a woman professing godliness, and standing up for what GOD thinks, ACROSS THE BOARD.

And if the church wants to be taken seriously by people like Perez Hilton, it needs to stop being so hypocritical and blind. It needs to go to Jesus for some eye medicine. It also needs to stop strengthening the hands of those who do evil, like Carrie Prejean, so that she will repent and follow after righteousness.

“I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness; they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah.” Jeremiah 23:14

“But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother (or sister) be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.” I Cor 5: 1-13

Ibrahim Sajid Malick

A look back at Pakistan’s history exposes the hypocrisy of such assertions. It was, in fact, during Gen.Zia ul Haq’s rule that the US was allowed to construct five ‘intelligence and recon basses’ in Pakistan. It was under Gen. Musharaf’s rule that Pakistan compromised the security of it’s nuclear assets, allowed drone attacks, handed over Pakistani civilians to the CIA and allowed Blackwater to launch covert operations.

Blackwater operatives have been working under a covert program run by the Joint Special Operations Command, the military’s top covert operations force. The previously undisclosed JSOC operations would mark the first known confirmation of U.S. military activity inside Pakistan.

This was possible because in 2006 Gen. Pervez Musharaf struck a deal with the Bush administration that allows U.S. Special Operations forces from the Joint Special Operations Command to enter Pakistan with the understanding that they were, “following the target.”

Indeed, if you read Pakistan’s short history you will find that our Army has always served America’s interest and its foreign policy has been congruent with US policy in the region. Although our nation’s key decision to stand in America’s camp pre-dates the Ayub regime, it was during our first martial law that Pakistan’s anti-imperialist forces were completely crushed.

Two more significant telegrams sent from the US embassy in Karachi clearly indicate that: America was fearful of Pakistan’s left inclined politicians and Ayub Khan was being encouraged to take control ie. “a coup by a military dictatorship”.

I will be adding to more documents here to deconstruct the notion that Pakistan’s army is anti-imperialist. Secondly, I will also continue to question the assertions of many that Pakistan’s Army is truly religious. It only promoted and protected Islamist elements to serve U.S. interests. Ironically Pakistan’s army also promoted westernized voices in early parts of it history, also at the behest of it’s American masters. A religious bigot like Zia ul Haq was built-up when America wanted to exploit religious sentiments. And, Gen. Musharaf was nurtured as a ‘westernized’ voice when that was the need of the day. This willingness to be anything the U.S. wants is often observed by Pakistan watchers who say: if America wants a transvestite, the Pakistan army will hurry up and promote a hijra through it’s rank.

Extracts from Ibrahim Sajid Malick’s article originally published at:
http://ibrahimsajidmalick.com/is-pakistan-army-anti-america-not-really/433/

To read full article, please visit author’s blog.

Disclaimer: We neither subscribe to Ibrahim Sajid Malick’s ideology on Democracy nor we intend to support his views directly or indirectly, we have carefully selected this article because it exposes notion as misunderstood by majority of Pakistanis that Pakistan’s army is anti-America and they have Islamist elements within them.

Ibrahim Sajid Malick

A look back at Pakistan’s history exposes the hypocrisy of such assertions. It was, in fact, during Gen.Zia ul Haq’s rule that the US was allowed to construct five ‘intelligence and recon basses’ in Pakistan. It was under Gen. Musharaf’s rule that Pakistan compromised the security of it’s nuclear assets, allowed drone attacks, handed over Pakistani civilians to the CIA and allowed Blackwater to launch covert operations.

Blackwater operatives have been working under a covert program run by the Joint Special Operations Command, the military’s top covert operations force. The previously undisclosed JSOC operations would mark the first known confirmation of U.S. military activity inside Pakistan.

This was possible because in 2006 Gen. Pervez Musharaf struck a deal with the Bush administration that allows U.S. Special Operations forces from the Joint Special Operations Command to enter Pakistan with the understanding that they were, “following the target.”

Indeed, if you read Pakistan’s short history you will find that our Army has always served America’s interest and its foreign policy has been congruent with US policy in the region. Although our nation’s key decision to stand in America’s camp pre-dates the Ayub regime, it was during our first martial law that Pakistan’s anti-imperialist forces were completely crushed.

Two more significant telegrams sent from the US embassy in Karachi clearly indicate that: America was fearful of Pakistan’s left inclined politicians and Ayub Khan was being encouraged to take control ie. “a coup by a military dictatorship”.

I will be adding to more documents here to deconstruct the notion that Pakistan’s army is anti-imperialist. Secondly, I will also continue to question the assertions of many that Pakistan’s Army is truly religious. It only promoted and protected Islamist elements to serve U.S. interests. Ironically Pakistan’s army also promoted westernized voices in early parts of it history, also at the behest of it’s American masters. A religious bigot like Zia ul Haq was built-up when America wanted to exploit religious sentiments. And, Gen. Musharaf was nurtured as a ‘westernized’ voice when that was the need of the day. This willingness to be anything the U.S. wants is often observed by Pakistan watchers who say: if America wants a transvestite, the Pakistan army will hurry up and promote a hijra through it’s rank.

Extracts from Ibrahim Sajid Malick’s article originally published at:
http://ibrahimsajidmalick.com/is-pakistan-army-anti-america-not-really/433/

To read full article, please visit author’s blog.

Disclaimer: We neither subscribe to Ibrahim Sajid Malick’s ideology on Democracy nor we intend to support his views directly or indirectly, we have carefully selected this article because it exposes notion as misunderstood by majority of Pakistanis that Pakistan’s army is anti-America and they have Islamist elements within them.

Take heed to yourselves, lest you live in those sins which you preach against in others, and lest you be guilty of that which daily you condemn. Will you make it your work to magnify God, and, when you have done, dishonor him as much as others? Will you proclaim Christ’s governing power, and yet contemn it, and rebel yourselves? Will you preach his laws, and willfully break them? If sin be evil, why do you live in it? If it be not, why do you dissuade men from it? If it be dangerous, how dare you venture on it? It it be not, why do you tell men so? If God’s threatenings be true, why do you not fear them? If they be false, why do you needlessly trouble men with them, and put them into such frights without cause? Do you “know the judgment of God, that they who commit such things are worthy of death”; and yet will you do them? “Thou that teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery,” or be drunk, or covetous, art thou such thyself? “Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?” What! Shall the same tongue speak evil that speakest against evil? Shall those lips censure, and slander, and backbite your neighbor, that cry down these and the like things in others? Take heed to yourselves, lest you cry down sin, and yet do not overcome it; lest, while you seek to brink it down in others, you bow to it, and become its slaves yourselves: “For of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought into bondage.” “To whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey, whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness.” O brethren!  It is easier to chide at sin, than to overcome it.

This paragraph is taken from Richard Baxter’s “The Reformed Pastor”. Baxter was a Puritan pastor who lived November 12, 1615 – December 8, 1691.

read > ‘Cap and Trade Is Dead’

President Obama’s approval rating dropped below 50% on Real Clear Politics meta-survey. If President Obama was a Republican, the press would be full editorial comment on how this is an indication that the President needs to adjust his policies to be more in step with the American public. However, President Obama is the Media’s candidate, so the historic drop in approval ratings is mentioned rarely if at all.

Over these past few years I know what it has been like to be on the top of your faith and I know what it is like to almost lose it. I know the arguments for both accepting and rejecting faith in Christ. I know how true Christianity and false Christianity look like and have experienced both sides of the proverbial coin.

And one major problem has allowed me to examine why I truly believe in Christ: hypocrisy.  This one major problem that has spread throughout the body of Christ is why I have wondered why I believe in Christ in the first place. This one major problem has made me wonder is it worth fellowshipping with those who call themselves Christians. And this one major problem has almost destroyed my faith, my ministry, and my life.

Jerks—I can’t stand them. If anyone is honest with himself or herself they would probably say the same thing. I mean, who says that they love jerks? I mean anyone with half a brain would probably say, “I can’t stand jerks.” I mean that’s just me, but who knows these days. But it seems like the epidemic of “jerk-itis” is on the flippin’ rise. I see girls that are in love with macho jerks; I see people in government that are elitist jerks; I see corporate executives that are greedy and are ravenous jerks; I see jerks, jerks, and more jerks.

But the one place I have seen more jerks in my life than any other place unfortunately is not in the clubs, Washington, D.C. , or on Wall Street—nope, the place I have seen my fair share of jerks is in the church. Now it is one thing for some atheist to write this statement; but this is coming from someone who is a passionate believer in Christ, who loves Christ and His church, and was a former “jerk.”

You see, when I first became a Christian I was brought up more with the mentality of being a legalist jerk than being a compassionate servant. For me it was all about being right and wrong and it was about who could be the most holy and dress in the best suit. It was about politics and about CCM (hating it, then liking it, then having to hear it is the “devil’s music,” then finally liking it). It was about going to that “Christian college,” and abstinence and about dating is bad and courtship is good. In the end it was about me, myself, and I. I didn’t even grasp the picture of what authentic Christianity looked like until recently in life. All I was seeing previously was hypocrisy, fundamentalism, legalism, and everything that the Lord hates but the things that permeate the Church.

Jerks are everywhere man and they come in all shapes and sizes. They are nonbelievers but they are believers as well. I am not saying that the things above like CCM, abstinence, and courtship are bad things. But having the attitude that because I like or practice those things makes me better than you is “jerkish.” What we need to do to eradicate the “jerk-itis” syndrome that is going around the church today is replace everything “we hate” with the royal law as James puts it: to love God and to love others. If we would become a band of believers that were known more for who we love than for what we hate—the world wouldn’t have to see us as bold-face bigots or hatemongers; we could be seen as revolutionaries, as compassionate servants of the kingdom desiring life change in every individual life.

I have been there and done that when it comes to being a “jerk,” and now I abandon it for something authentic—a true servant of Christ. Laying aside any fundamentalism, or legalism, or judgmentalism, or homophobia, or hypocrisy, or anything that would hinder me from opening up the truth of the gospel with others—I serve God with all my heart and love God and love others.

Here’s a “short test” to see if you pass or fail the “jerk test”:

“With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be.” (James 3:9-10)

So if you praise God yet curse men, you pass the “jerk test” with flying colors, and if you don’t, well then you fail. If we were honest with ourselves, I would say we all have passed and have been there, done that. Let’s resolve never to commit the act that James has spoken of, but let us always do the following:

“If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself,’ you are doing right.” (James 2:8)

[this is from a series of articles entitled: “Why I Hate…”]

…especially you socially conservative so-called “free” so-called “speechers”…Hello?  Hello?? (*tap-tap*  Is this thing on?)

Am I the only person who’s noticed the jeerleaders of the Blogosphere Right have gone completely silent about what they so derisorily call “the train set” since Transport Minister Steven Joyce announced National’s approval of $500 million worth of electric trains for Auckland ? Given this is close to what Michael Cullen paid directly for the country’s whole rail system after it was bled dry and asset-stripped by their mates (and more than what they abused Cullen for in total, when the entire $1 billion Joyce has committed to for the decades-overdue electrification of Auckland’s trains is counted), it’s obvious they have been stunned into silence, waiting for key lines, but Mr Farrar is overseas.

Cue Homepaddock, who always rises to the occasion at Mintie Moments like these.

If you give a damn about ethics, you’ve already wondered why the hell it’s no longer taboo (enough) to do something as disgusting as wearing fur. This article from Sunday’s edition of The Guardian, which includes quotes from people who profit from the sale of fur and from PETA co-founder Ingrid Newkirk, definitely merits reading.

(I know many you don’t care for Ms. Newkirk, and certain PETA campaigns definitely leave a bad taste in my mouth, but considering that most media outlets are struggling to attract and keep advertisers these days – and believe me, fashion magazines feature fur so much partly to keep their fur-selling advertisers happy – at least The Guardian is presenting both sides of the issue. Take that, Vogue!)

Writer Elizabeth Day even outs the fur industry’s greenwashing, referring to studies conducted by Ford Motor Company AND the University of Michigan* that indicate the significantly higher amount of energy required to produce a real fur coat (vs. synthetic), though she doesn’t quite have all of her facts straight (leather is NOT a by-product, Ms. Day…please read your own paper’s archives!).

Particularly worth noting is this quote from Newkirk:

“These designers who are given junkets to Scandinavia and are given free material – I hate to call fur a ‘material’ – I suppose they must be desperate. If you’re truly creative, you don’t design with something someone hands you. Fur has lost all its cachet. It’s yesterday. I see prostitutes in Atlantic City wearing fur.“

Which has given me a fantastic idea.

Those who wear fur (and are not in immediate danger of freezing to death if they take it off) choose to do so because they (erroneously) believe it makes them look rich and beautiful. These people are completely self-centered; they rarely, if ever, care about animal cruelty or the environment. The logical thing to do is to remove every last trace of fur’s cachet by consistently associating it with precisely the same sorts of people for whom fur-wearers do not want to be mistaken.

Say there’s a new girl in your neighborhood with a rabbit-fur jacket. Under the guise of being neighborly (and you ARE a good neighbor anyway, aren’t you?), sweetly let her know that the hookers down on Broadway Street wear fur jackets similar to hers; she might want to wear her polar-fleece coat when she goes out.

Or, say a snotty mink-wearer in front of you and your friends at Starbucks yells at the barista. You might choose to say something like this just loud enough for her to hear you:

“God, what a self-entitled slag.”

“I know! Only an overgrown spoiled brat acts that way.”

“She’s probably a hooker. Tacky coat, lower-class manners – no one respectable presents themselves that way.”

“Totally.”

Or, say a fur-wearer is holding a coffee cup and standing outside. Wouldn’t it be awfully embarrassing (for her) if several people plunked loose change into her cup, “innocently” mistaking her for a panhandler? (If she gets bitchy, ask her why she’s dressed like a homeless person if she doesn’t want people to think she actually is homeless.)***

It goes without saying that, in all of these cases, your message will be MUCH more potent if:

• You are well-dressed. Remember, tasteful understatement unless you are a fashion plate!
• You leave the message gear at home (or at least strategically drape your scarf over the “Fur Sucks” button on your messenger bag until she’s gone). It’s counterintuitive for animal-lovers, but trust me, ridiculing fur hags is much more effective if they DON’T realize your true motive. Everyone loves to write off a “freak” or “extremist”, but no one likes being shamed or snickered at by someone they assume is in the majority.
• You are reasonably well-mannered (slightly snarky is okay).
• You have strong enough acting skills to keep a completely straight face (when “mistaking” a fur-wearer for a hooker, anyway).
• If you have an upper-class accent, now’s the time to use it. (If you do not have an upper-class accent, proceed with extreme caution should you dare imitate one; they can be very difficult to get exactly right!)

Ironically, many of the really upper-class people that modern-day fur-wearers seek to emulate rarely, if ever, wear real fur anymore. At a certain level, flaunting money is irredeemably vulgar, and what screams “I’m rich, spoiled, and proud of it” more loudly than a fur coat? Fur is for tasteless nouveaux riches. Truly rich people go for tasteful understatement (case in point: when she was young, Jackie O. wore a cloth coat when mink coats were all the rage, although she certainly could have afforded fur even then).**

Is this a slightly immature idea? Maybe. But it’s definitely far less immature than selfishly and unnecessarily taking another creature’s life without a second thought.

*Note to Ford and U. Mich.: conducting the study again to evaluate how energy-efficient a good fake is these days could bring in very valuable publicity. Green is in, you know. Ditto for compassion. Just don’t let the fur industry bully you into doctoring the results – if that happens, you WILL lose all your credibility when the public finds out.

**Exception: conspicuous outrage. If you come from a well-respected, prominent, and/or notorious family, you can generally wear whatever the hell you want without hearing too many jokes about Bubble or Lady Gaga. However, this only works if you are dressing to express yourself and have a good idea of who you are. Otherwise, you’ll look like you really ARE trying to imitate Lady Gaga…and failing miserably at it.

***Please treat actual homeless people with respect – they are human beings, and many of them have untreated mental illnesses. More than 80% of young homeless people are forced to leave home, often due to abuse. True compassion extends to disadvantaged people, too, so be nice.

I, my head of department and my colleagues S and M were sitting at HoD’s room having a general chat when the topic diverted to marriage and wives.

HoD :- That day I was having  some problem with my mobile. My wife solved the problem whereas I could not!! I didn’t think she can even use a mobile. You know one is lucky to have a simple wife.

M :- Oh yes sir! And in this matter I can say I am a very lucky man.

HoD :- What about you, S? When are you getting married?

S :- Parents are searching for a girl, sir.

HoD :- Good good. You should look for a simple girl. One who is not working and will look after your home and kids nicely. They are the best. In fact you should look for  a girl from rural U.P. [my colleague S hails from rural U.P.]

M :- Yes sir. The farther is the girl’s home , the better she can concentrate in her in-laws place.

S :- Yes, I do not want to marry any working girl.  It is all useless. Whole family, home and kids are ruined.

I asked my HoD something else then and changed the topic.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Imagine all this talk when I, a well qualified working girl, is sitting there. I didn’t open my mouth to protest then because it is no use convincing them. I have had many debates with them (my colleagues not HoD) over the years without any results. They are one of the most typical samples of orthodox, conventional and narrow minded men. And I believe a man convinced against his will, is unconvinced still.

I just have a few questions in my mind :-

# 1 What is the definition of a simple girl that many people use in their conversation, on their bio datas and in matrimonial ads? You know in the sentence – “wanted a simple homely girl etc etc”

# 2 Are higher qualifications inversely proportional to simplicity in a girl?

# 3 Do higher qualifications or being tech savvy or being street smart and not being a babe in the woods make girls crooked or something like that?

# 4 Are highly qualified working [i.e. those getting an income] girls less eligible for marriage and even less eligible for being homemakers?

# 5 Does a “simple” girl make a better mother and wife than any other types of girls/women?

# 6 Do kids having a earning mother fare badly in studies and in life?

# 7 Are girls supposed to just forget the place and the people with whom they spend at least 20 years of their life after getting married?

# 8 Why must girls stop being concerned about their parents and become more concerned about their in laws?

# 9 Why are daughter-in-laws expected to become equivalent to daughters for their in laws but son-in-laws can’t (and also are not expected to) become sons for their in laws?

What are your answers?

P.S. Yes I work with very sad people. Sigh!!

They came to American soil to escape persecution in Europe…
The natives of America helped and taught the Pilgrims agricultural and survival skills.


.
Then later, more new settlers came and they became the persecutors…

Then much later on after several broken peace treaties and more invasions, they were forced to move away from their homelands and their sacred grounds suffering their persecution…

.

Is this how we thank the people that assisted the European settlers back in the autumn of 1621?

.

The New Barack Channel (NBC) has jumped into the fray between Kennedy and the Catholic Church.  As usual, they are doing so with a leftist bias.

The second paragraph of the article which I have highlighted in bold below sums up the crux of the matter.  When a church or other conservative  organization compromises what it believes in order to support some liberal/progressive policy, no one says anything about separation of church and state (which is a misinterpreted load of liberal crap anyway).  But let the same organization take the same conservative stand they have taken since the beginning of time, and the left comes out screaming.  Hypocrites.

Now you have the Catholic Church, which to my knowledge has been around even longer than the United States, and has always said that abortion is wrong, is saying what it has always said:  “You can’t have your cake and eat it too.”  They are telling this Kennedy idiot that Catholics (and Christians) can not support or condone abortion, and if you do support or condone abortion you can’t be a Catholic, or at least not one in good standing.  They are illustrating what God has always tried to teach us, that the world is black and white, not the shades of gray that liberals portray it to be.  There IS right, and there IS wrong.  Right and wrong don’t change with the times.  The religion of moral relativism propagated by liberals has taken over our society like a cancer.

So, why are liberals trying so hard to remove God from the public square?  Two reasons.

1. Acknowledging the existence of God reminds liberals of their own sin, and they do not want to be reminded of that.
2. Liberals/communists know that people who have a strong moral foundation can’t be controlled easily.  Someone without a moral foundation will believe whatever they are told by the powers that be.  This also speaks to the dumbing down of our educational system.

Whether you are a Christian or not, you need to stand up against this coordinated, intentional assault on Christianity and organized religion in America.  Right now it may not appear that liberals are attacking islam, but that is only temporary.  Political correctness is the only thing preventing that at the moment.  If the muslims win before the liberals do, the liberals will wonder where the Christians are to protect them from beheading.  If the liberals get their way before islam takes over, the liberals will persecute the muslims just like they persecute us.  As I was saying, this is more than just an assault on religion.  It is an assault on freedom.  Let’s review the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Any educated, reasonably clear thinking individual can see the wisdom behind the wording of the 1st Amendment, and that the liberals have taken great liberty with it to arrive at the current interpretation regarding “separation of church and state.”  It means that the government will not establish a STATE religion that you must be a part of.  It DOES NOT prohibit those in government who are of various religions from displaying or participating in their religion while on the job.

Wake up, people!  An attack on one of our freedoms is an attack on all of them.  Jealously guard your freedom, for tomorrow it may be taken from you.

NBC Takes Up Kennedy vs. Catholic Church ‘Crossing the Line’ Into ‘Political Blackmail’

By: Tim Graham
November 24, 2009 10:55 ET

Monday’s NBC Nightly News took up the story of liberal Congressman Patrick Kennedy’s public feud with the Catholic Church, and NBC’s Ron Allen implied something improper in how “the Catholic Church is flexing its religious and political muscle.”

When Catholic officials endorse liberal initiatives like immigration reform or oppose an execution, the networks don’t worry about the separation of church and state. But with traditional stands against abortion and gay marriage in the crossfire, NBC’s screen graphic asked if the church was “Crossing the Line?” A secular-left lobbyist accused the church of being “not above spiritual and political blackmail.”

(Read rest of article HERE)

I wish everyone a great Thanksgiving.

Still, this being a political blog, I just visited a few of Steve Bell’s cartoons of Thanksgiving past from those innocent times in the past when we could say was is wrong

and that famous turkey

Mind you, both thse cartoons are about Bush.

It should be noted that this year Steve Bell no longer cares about US or Thanksgiving in his cartoons. It’s all Europe now. Nothing to satirize here, folks.

IOKIUAO.

After dreaming up the super charisma/Messiah/bestest speaker ever, the fans can’t explain the hangover they are feeling.

MoDo has it so bad that at the end of a a full column filled with all the usual spews at Clinton, she ends up comparing Obama unfavorably to her Nemesis

Bill Clinton may not have cared any more about contributors than Obama does, but he was such a talented politician that he made them feel as though they were in “a warm bath,” as one put it.

Obama is more like a cold shower.

I thought being declared worse than Palin was the bottom, but poor Darcy is in real doodoo this time…There’s no worse insult in M0Do’s universe than that.

But will she hate him obsessively, for centuries too? Stay tuned.

Sullivan is still on koolaid, furiously mixing metaphors

In all this, Obama reminds me of George H W Bush in government, and of Ronald Reagan in campaigning. It’s a dream combo in many ways.

But Politico dedicated it’s Arena” to the search for the missing charisma

Obama’s charisma: Where did he leave it?

And there are a few still fans, a few who were always opponents and the lucid ones such as Mary Frances Berry

thoughtful people are contrasting his words with what they know. He now has a history of uneven policy success- greedy financiers engorged with the taxpayers money, a lingering recession, a health reform bill that will become law but leave many of his supporters feeling unfulfilled, more war in Afghanistan, peace more elusive in the Middle East, and the Iran nuclear problem unresolved

or Drew Westen who wonders

Does he believe that women and couples should make their own decisions about when to start their own families? All of his actions say no. Does he believe that gay people are full American citizens, or are they 3/5 of a man? His actions say the latter. Does he believe that all Americans should have more choices in their health care? No, he isn’t expanding any choices for the majority

and for that reason, former supporters

Many of the Democrats and Independents I know who voted for him now say they turn off the television when they see him on because they’re tired of the pretty words without any evidence of genuine passion or commitment behind them a week later

And as the koolaid wears off, more Jr.jr signs burst all over. As Don Siegelman, victim of Rove and now Obama observes

“There’s really been no substantial change in the heart of the Department of Justice from the Bush-Rove Department of Justice,”

Indeed. The guy who sold his senate seat and cavorted with Rezko, believes Rove proved corruption when framing Siegelman.

No kidding! Just ask a satisfied customer, Blackwater who got the same preferential treatment as during W’s times

And why not? They are doing such a bang up job in Pakistan!

And not even signing the land mine treaty

To quote Mr Fish

- in that cartoon was published in late 2007/early 2008:

“And I hope to bring fresh charisma to Doomsday”

Doomsday? Check. Charisma? They’re still looking

Dahlia
Originally uploaded by mira_foto

A piece by our very own Deborah’s mom.  Such fun!

The Public vs. the Private Image
Gladys Clark Farmer
Vol. 7, No. 3 (Spring 1981)

Recently a new set of visiting teachers came to my home. As one sister began the lesson, she became obviously embarrassed, hesitated, then said, “You don’t need this. You and your family already do these things.”

I blushed a little at her sincere compliment and reassured her that I did need and appreciate the Relief Society lessons. But as she left, I felt a little uneasy. I sensed that she and others in the ward based their impressions of me on the most visible part of my life, my public accomplishments. Would they feel differently about me if they could have a private view of our home life?

While I try to avoid hypocrisy, I am human. But I think that most of us are afraid to acknowledge our human side to each other. Perhaps we have created a situation similar to the culture so poignantly described by Edward Robinson in his poem about the rich young man, Richard Corey, whom everyone envied because he seemed to have everything, but who went home and put a bullet through his head. Robinson was making a perceptive commentary on how deceiving it is to judge by appearances.

I think judging by appearances begins in childhood. We learn at a very early age how important our public image is, especially to our parents. Our behavior and performances in public become the manifestation of their success or failure. Their egos enmeshed in their offspring, they shower us with attention and praises for the 4-H, scout, and school prizes we’re awarded, the little league games we win, our solo parts in Primary programs, and our performances at piano and dance recitals. Their disappointment is just as evident when these recognitions go to a neighbor’s child instead, or when we may have embarrassed them in public by our actions or performance.

The importance of “looking good” is re-enforced by teachers and leaders. Having “arrived” becomes more important than the nature of the journey. Trophies are only given to the winners, not to those who try their hardest. One hundred per cent attendance is often stressed more than conduct, attitude, or what is learned while attending.

Because most children try hard to please those who give and withhold praise, they learn early to broadcast their
successes and quietly struggle with their failures. Some just quit taking risks; it is easier to take simpler classes and stay on the honor roll than to accept the challenge of a harder course with the possibility of failure.

By the time we are adults, the pattern is usually firmly established. We have the part of us that is recorded in our mother’s scrapbook of awards, newspaper clippings, and college and mission field letters which describe the good things that have happened to us. At the same time, there is another part of us secretly recorded in our locked diaries or in the recesses of our mind. Fortunately, there are usually enough good friends around who know and accept us with all our warts and blemishes so that we learn to cope with life and move forward.

But when we take on the roles of wives and mothers, we often find ourselves in a very lonely situation. Thoroughly indoctrinated with the “ideal home, bit of heaven” model, we find it hard to admit to ourselves, much less verbalize to others, feelings of concern, frustration, or disappointment. Now, more than ever before, we want our parents to be proud of us. We want to prove we can do well on our own. Letters home are less frequent and now include the latest achievements of our children, rather than our own honest thoughts.

Even those fortunate enough to have understanding and supportive husbands soon learn that men don’t enjoy leaving their problems at work only to come home to more domestic ones. Wives learn to choose their words, and the time to express them, very carefully.

To whom can we turn to expose our inner selves long enough to examine and resolve difficulty issues—such as how to cope with an unexpected pregnancy, how to overcome resentment over a husband’s increasing absence due to employment and church work, how to communicate with a sullen child?

The sisters in our ward—women who share some of our deepest commitments and hopes—seem like promising prospects, but in reality the members of our ward may be the very last to whom we’d turn. Why?

We fear their judgment. We suspect that they, even more than our non-member neighbors, judge by appearances. We fear that the measuring stick they will use to judge us is that “ideal” woman described in Church literature and lauded over the pulpit on Mother’s Day.

I’m convinced that living the Gospel does make people’s lives better, and that we as church members do have the responsibility of sharing our lifestyle with the outside world. But we aren’t content to let this way of life speak for itself. In our striving for perfection, we seem intent on displaying the appearance of a finished product rather than acknowledging the on-going process, with its accompanying growth and error. Just as we have made our historical characters flawless, we now want ourselves, and each other, to appear equally unflawed.

While most of us do sincerely enjoy our sisters in the church, we seldom communicate beyond a superficial, or just church-related, level. We don’t trust ourselves or them enough to think they would still like us if they knew that we didn’t like housework, that we shouted at our children, or that we preferred sex to sewing.

We sit quietly in mother education classes, happy to glean what wisdom we can. Perhaps we never note that it is the mothers with preschoolers who have the answers to the teen-age problems and the relaxed grandmothers who tell how they raised their babies, while those struggling with the immediate problem seldom make a comment. On a day that we feel particularly self-confident, we may share the secret that our baby, too, sucked his thumb for three years or cried whenever he was left. It is unlikely that we’d ‘s unthinkable he still wets his bed, and it’s unthinkable to speak of masturbation. The problems for which we need the most help are the ones we don’t dare discuss.

The success stories we will tell—just as we have learned to do all our lives; but the failures, which are just as normal and perhaps more frequent, we try to keep to ourselves. Feelings of guilt and loneliness increase, however, as we sense the disparity.

I well remember the amazement I experienced when I learned that some women whom I greatly admired were silently struggling with their own problems. In separate confidential moments, one told me about a child who had left the Church, another of a financial mistake which had cost them dearly, and a third about a difficult struggle she’d had with depression. Those confessions were made in whispered tones, with “please-don’t-think-less-of-me” looks. If these women had only understood the hope and courage their honesty gave me, they would have shared their burdens earlier. My love and respect for them has multiplied.

I appeal form ore honesty of the kind these women showed me and of the kind I have received from many of the contributors to Exponent II—even if this honesty brings with it the risk of being rejected by some. We need to accept the fact that Mormons, too, are human. Perhaps we could then forget our obsession with appearances, see the public/private image dichotomy, and reach out to one another in really beneficial and supportive communication.