I'm thankful I was able to go to church with my kiddos this past Sunday, stay the whole time, and hang out with the nursery children. I love it when their regular teacher is present, but it was fun to be "in charge" for a day. :)
I'm grateful for health. It's amazing how quickly I take it for granted... and then realize what a gift and blessing it is when it's absent!
I'm thankful for the ability to change. I'm grateful that, through Christ, when we rest in Him, we can truly hope for and expect changes to be permanent. I sure am hoping.... ^_^
I'm thankful for my family. I've been missing them a bit lately... so I just have to express gratitude that I am so blessed to know such wonderful people as those with whom I grew up (parents as well as siblings).
I knew my brother, John, was amazing when I realized how very convining he was as an actor. Actually, I knew it before that... that bit of info just tipped the scales a bit.
I knew my brother, Josh, was amazing when he didn't give a hairy rat's ankle about our parents' blustery angry spoutings. (Oh, come on! Don't all parents do this at some point????? Especially during their children's teen years!!??)
I knew my sister, Evelyn, was amazing when she still loved me no matter how much I acted like I didn't like her. I wish I wasn't such a jerk when I was younger. I still have jerk tendancies... please see above regarding change.
I knew my lil' (big) brother, Ben, was amazing when he would purposefully hurt himself just to make us (older siblings) laugh. I mean, seriously... how could such a person be other than amazing?? He loved so big and so much he would hurt himself just to enjoy laughing with us... repeatedly.
I knew my lil' (ALSO big) brother, Eddie, was amazing when I read a story my Mom sent to me. It had something to do with time travel. I remember reading it and wishing I had such an amazing imagionation as he did. The kicker? He was in, like, SECOND grade and I was in colllege! Seriously.
I'm absolutely sure I knew my parents were amazing before I arrived here because I wouldn't have agreed to take on all the stuff that has come as a result of this life if I didn't believe in all of us... my parents, my siblings... AND me. Gosh, I wish I could remember why I believed in ME so much. *sigh* Hopefully I'll get there sometime soon... time is a tickin' afterall.
And they are still beyond amazing... for even more wonderous reasons!
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Mainstream Media versus Real News
I've simply copied and pasted a few different articles here. Just because I can. ^_^
The first, you should be able to find at WND Commentary.
Between the Lines
Proof! Establishment media controlled
http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/proof-establishment-media-controlled/
Exclusive: Joseph Farah scorches 'journalists' who are 'selling their ethical, moral souls'
Published about 2:58pm July 22, 2012
There was a rather low-key confession made in the New York Times last week that deserves to be blared throughout this country so that every American understands what they are reading in the establishment’s ultra-controlled, government-managed “press” – and I use that last word loosely indeed.
The admission came in the form of a story by Jeremy Peters on the policies page of the Times July 16. I’ve been waiting for others to point it out, discuss it, debate it, express shock and exasperation over it. But I’ve waited for naught.
What this shocking story reveals is that even I – one of the kingpins of the new media and a refugee from the state-controlled spin machine – underestimated the utter and total corruption of the euphemistically called “mainstream press.”
It shows that most – not some – members of the print media establishment with access to the White House submit their copy to government officials for review, “correction” and approval before it reaches the American people!
Even “progressive” WND columnist Ellen Ratner agrees – media under a spell!
Here are some key excerpts from the piece, if you think I’m exaggerating:
- “The quotations come back redacted, stripped of colorful metaphors, colloquial language and anything even mildly provocative.”
- “They are sent by e-mail from the Obama headquarters in Chicago to reporters who have interviewed campaign officials under one major condition: the press office has veto power over what statements can be quoted and attributed by name.”
- “Most reporters, desperate to pick the brains of the president’s top strategists, grudgingly agree. After the interviews, they review their notes, check their tape recorders and send in the juiciest sound bites for review. The verdict from the campaign – an operation that prides itself on staying consistently on script – is often no, Barack Obama does not approve this message.”
- “Now, with a millisecond Twitter news cycle and an unforgiving, gaffe-obsessed media culture, politicians and their advisers are routinely demanding that reporters allow them final editing power over any published quotations.”
- “Quote approval is standard practice for the Obama campaign, used by many top strategists and almost all mid-level aides in Chicago and at the White House – almost anyone other than spokesmen who are paid to be quoted. (And sometimes it applies even to them.) It is also commonplace throughout Washington and on the campaign trail.”
- “Many journalists spoke about the editing only if granted anonymity, an irony that did not escape them.”
- “From Capitol Hill to the Treasury Department, interviews granted only with quote approval have become the default position. Those officials who dare to speak out of school, but fearful of making the slightest off-message remark, shroud even the most innocuous and anodyne quotations in anonymity by insisting they be referred to as a ‘top Democrat’ or a ‘Republican strategist.’”
- “Those [reporters] who did speak on the record said the restrictions seem only to be growing. ‘It’s not something I’m particularly proud of because there’s a part of me that says, Don’t do it, don’t agree to their terms,’ said Major Garrett, a correspondent for The National Journal.”
- “It was difficult to find a news outlet that had not agreed to quote approval, albeit reluctantly. Organizations like Bloomberg, The Washington Post, Vanity Fair, Reuters and The New York Times have all consented to interviews under such terms.”
What it means is this: When Americans read these reports – whether in newspapers, wire services or on the Internet – they are not really reading news stories at all. They are reading approved, pre-packaged press releases from the government and politicians. But, even worse, they are not labeled as such. They are labeled as actual news.
That’s how low the national press establishment has descended. And, when you read the story in its full context, you will understand that the concerns expressed about this practice by those submitting themselves to it are not ethical concerns. They are not concerns for the truth. They are concerns about their own convenience and for the loss of “color” in their stories.
Let me state what I hope is obvious to all reading this column: This sort of willing capitulation to government censorship was not the norm five years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago or 30 years ago. This is a new phenomenon – chilling and alarming to an old-timer like me who would never agree to submit his copy for approval to politicians.
These so-called journalists are selling their ethical and moral souls for access to politicians. And this practice raises expectations by politicians that they can routinely manipulate the press to their advantage. That makes the job of real journalists – independent reporters faithful to their craft – even more difficult, because they will be shut out from access.
It reminds me of the fact that, just last week, WND was denied credentials to cover the Democratic National Convention. Why do you suppose what has become one of the largest and most influential news agencies in the country would be denied access to the convention floor? Simply because the Democrats know we won’t play by their rules of control like the members of the establishment press club.
All I can say about these people I once considered “colleagues” is that I am so ashamed of them. I am mortified. They are humiliating themselves and a vital institution for any free society.
It seems the biggest threat to the American tradition of a free and independent press is not government coercion. It’s the willing submission of the press to being handled and managed by government and politicians.
The next article:
Latest Word on the Trail? I Take It Back
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/16/us/politics/latest-word-on-the-campaign-trail-i-take-it-back.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all
By Jeremy W. Peters
Published: July 15, 2012
The quotations come back redacted, stripped of colorful metaphors, colloquial language and anything even mildly provocative.
They are sent by e-mail from the Obama headquarters in Chicago to reporters who have interviewed campaign officials under one major condition: the press office has veto power over what statements can be quoted and attributed by name.
Most reporters, desperate to pick the brains of the president’s top strategists, grudgingly agree. After the interviews, they review their notes, check their tape recorders and send in the juiciest sound bites for review.
The verdict from the campaign — an operation that prides itself on staying consistently on script — is often no, Barack Obama does not approve this message.
The push and pull over what is on the record is one of journalism’s perennial battles. But those negotiations typically took place case by case, free from the red pens of press minders. Now, with a millisecond Twitter news cycle and an unforgiving, gaffe-obsessed media culture, politicians and their advisers are routinely demanding that reporters allow them final editing power over any published quotations.
Quote approval is standard practice for the Obama campaign, used by many top strategists and almost all midlevel aides in Chicago and at the White House — almost anyone other than spokesmen who are paid to be quoted. (And sometimes it applies even to them.) It is also commonplace throughout Washington and on the campaign trail.
The Romney campaign insists that journalists interviewing any of Mitt Romney’s five sons agree to use only quotations that are approved by the press office. And Romney advisers almost always require that reporters ask them for the green light on anything from a conversation that they would like to include in an article.
From Capitol Hill to the Treasury Department, interviews granted only with quote approval have become the default position. Those officials who dare to speak out of school, but fearful of making the slightest off-message remark, shroud even the most innocuous and anodyne quotations in anonymity by insisting they be referred to as a “top Democrat” or a “Republican strategist.”
It is a double-edged sword for journalists, who are getting the on-the-record quotes they have long asked for, but losing much of the spontaneity and authenticity in their interviews.
Jim Messina, the Obama campaign manager, can be foul-mouthed. But readers would not know it because he deletes the curse words before approving his quotes. Brevity is not a strong suit of David Plouffe, a senior White House adviser. So he tightens up his sentences before giving them the O.K.
Stuart Stevens, the senior Romney strategist, is fond of disparaging political opponents by quoting authors like Walt Whitman and referring to historical figures like H. R. Haldeman, Richard Nixon’s chief of staff. But such clever lines later rarely make it past Mr. Stevens.
Many journalists spoke about the editing only if granted anonymity, an irony that did not escape them. No one said the editing altered the meaning of a quote. The changes were almost always small and seemingly unnecessary, they said.
Those who did speak on the record said the restrictions seem only to be growing. “It’s not something I’m particularly proud of because there’s a part of me that says, ‘Don’t do it, don’t agree to their terms,’ ” said Major Garrett, a correspondent for The National Journal. “There are times when this feels like I’m dealing with some of my editors. It’s like, ‘You just changed this because you could!’ ”
It was difficult to find a news outlet that had not agreed to quote approval, albeit reluctantly.
Organizations like Bloomberg, The Washington Post, Vanity Fair, Reuters and The New York Times have all consented to interviews under such terms.
“We don’t like the practice,” said Dean Baquet, managing editor for news at The New York Times. “We encourage our reporters to push back. Unfortunately this practice is becoming increasingly common, and maybe we have to push back harder.”
The Obama campaign declined to make Mr. Plouffe or Mr. Messina available to explain their media practices. “We are not putting anyone on the record for this story,” said Katie Hogan, an Obama spokeswoman, without a hint of irony. She pointed to the many unrestricted interviews with campaign officials every day on television and when the press corps travels with the president.
Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, said the White House has made a concerted effort to make more officials available to the news media. “We have a lot more people talking a lot more often now,” he said.
Both presidential campaigns are keenly aware of what can happen when they speak too freely. Damaging sound bites can live on in the news cycle for days. Mr. Obama’s remark last month during a televised news conference that “the private sector is doing fine” landed almost immediately in attack ads. And Eric Fehrnstrom’s “Etch A Sketch” comment on CNN, about softening some of the harder positions Mr. Romney took during the primaries, continues to haunt the Romney campaign five months later.
Reporters who have covered the Obama presidency say the quote-approval process fits a pattern by this White House of finding new ways to limit its exposure in the news media.
“We realize there’s a caution and a wariness about stray comments driving the news cycle,” said Caren Bohan of Reuters, president of the White House Correspondents’ Association. “The argument we make is that if a president or a candidate is out there more, I think these things are less likely to be as glaring.”
Modern White Houses have long had “background briefings,” gatherings of top officials who speak to reporters under the condition that they are quoted anonymously. With time, the restrictions have become broader, often bordering on the absurd.
In 2007, Vice President Dick Cheney outed himself in a briefing the White House intended to be anonymous during an overseas trip. “I’ve seen some press reporting says, ‘Cheney went in to beat up on them,’ ” the vice president told reporters, according to the official transcript, adding, “That’s not the way I work.”
Though reporters with him protested, the vice president’s office refused to allow them to identify Mr. Cheney by name — even though it was clear who was speaking.
Under President Obama, the insistence on blanket anonymity has grown to new levels.
The White House’s latest innovation is a variation of the background briefing called the “deep-background briefing,” which it holds for groups of reporters, sometimes several dozen at a time. Reporters may paraphrase what senior administration officials say, but they are forbidden to put anything in quotation marks or identify the speakers.
The White House held such a briefing after the Supreme Court’s health care ruling last month with officials including Mr. Plouffe, Mr. Carney and Dan Pfeiffer, the communications director. But when reporters asked to quote part of the conversation, even anonymously, they were told no. Even the spokesmen were off limits.
Next Article:
LIBERAL & PROUD
The appalling state of 'journalism'
http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/the-appalling-state-of-journalism/
by Ellen Ratner
Published about 3:08pm, July 22, 2012
Four years ago, I interviewed the editor of a government-sponsored newspaper in the Middle East. Given that the government paid for the newspaper, I questioned the editor about journalistic integrity and independence. The answer I received: There’s a lot of self-censorship in the American press, and we don’t have as much of a free press as I wanted to believe. I walked away thinking the editor was crazy. Surely, I assured myself, we have a free press in our country.
Fast forward to this week, when an article in the New York Times titled, “Latest Word from the Trail? I Take It Back,” by Jeremy Peters, detailed the quote policy from the Obama White House and the Romney campaign. It was shocking to me as a journalist. I have been covering the White House since 1993, and the control of the press has been increasing.
President Clinton had free-wheeling press conferences and showed up in the press room on occasion for an “off the record” talk. Journalists would gather around him and ask as many questions as possible.
Now presidents have short press conferences and take questions from a list of reporters prepared by the press secretary.
Previously, there was the morning “gaggle,” where the television people were not seen on screen, which allowed the radio, print and magazine folks to have equal access. The gaggles were held in the press secretary’s office.
President George W. Bush’s press secretary, Dana Perino, stopped the gaggles. The Obama administration did not resurrect them.
The “mix and mingles” after State dinners stopped. Even the annual press picnic – where members of the media could have conversations with staff members – stopped as well.
Now, sadly, we have the White House and political campaigns cleaning up quotes before reporters are even allowed to publish their stories.
Peters’ article details what is really happening. Politicians are granting news outlets access only if they are allowed to first edit and approve their own statements.
He wrote, “Quote approval is standard practice for the Obama campaign, used by many top strategists and almost all midlevel aides in Chicago and at the White House – almost anyone other than spokesmen who are paid to be quoted. (And sometimes it applies even to them.) It is also commonplace throughout Washington and on the campaign trail.”
Peters continues, “The Romney campaign insists that journalists interviewing any of Mitt Romney’s five sons agree to use only quotations that are approved by the press office. And Romney advisers almost always require that reporters ask them for the green light on anything from a conversation that they would like to include in an article. ”
This entire process turns my stomach.
Wealthy news organizations can afford to travel with the president and with Gov. Romney. They want to show their bosses and the consumers of their news product that they have access.
The trade is clear: You give us the interview, and we will let you approve our reports.
We have all reviewed quotes with sources. It is done for the sake of accuracy. However, if an interview is taped, there is no need for reviews – unless it is to “clean up” a quote to please the news source.
The Associated Press has never allowed its journalists to clean up quotes that were accurate in the first place. Just this week, James Asher, the Washington bureau chief of McClatchy Newspapers put in force a policy regarding getting quote approval and the policy of Freedom of Information, or FOIA, requests.
In a letter to staff and readers he said, “These days government is trying mightily to constrain access to public information. Each of you has had no comments, demands for FIOAs that goes unanswered and worse. More recently our sources have been chilled by threats of leak investigations and some have endured full blown leak inquiries.”
Asher continued, “As advocates of the First Amendment, we cannot be intimidated into letting the government control our work. When The New York Times agreed with Bush Administration officials to delay publication of its story of illegal wiretaps of Americans until after the 2004 election, it did the nation a great disservice. Acceding to the Obama administration’s efforts to censor our work to have it more in line with their political spin is another disservice to America.”
Finally, McClatchy’s Asher said, “And judging from the controversy that has ensued from the disclosure of these requests, the people don’t like this, either.”
Helen Thomas gave me great advice when I first arrived at the White House. She said, “Ellen, a free press is necessary for democracy, and remember to never do anyone’s bidding.”
It seems that many in the news media are happy to do politicians’ and government’s bidding in exchange for access.
That kind of “journalism” will signal the end of our democracy faster than a rigged election. We don’t need it. Americans don’t want it. And it will ruin our free press – as well as our country.
Fast forward to this week, when an article in the New York Times titled, “Latest Word from the Trail? I Take It Back,” by Jeremy Peters, detailed the quote policy from the Obama White House and the Romney campaign. It was shocking to me as a journalist. I have been covering the White House since 1993, and the control of the press has been increasing.
President Clinton had free-wheeling press conferences and showed up in the press room on occasion for an “off the record” talk. Journalists would gather around him and ask as many questions as possible.
Now presidents have short press conferences and take questions from a list of reporters prepared by the press secretary.
Previously, there was the morning “gaggle,” where the television people were not seen on screen, which allowed the radio, print and magazine folks to have equal access. The gaggles were held in the press secretary’s office.
President George W. Bush’s press secretary, Dana Perino, stopped the gaggles. The Obama administration did not resurrect them.
The “mix and mingles” after State dinners stopped. Even the annual press picnic – where members of the media could have conversations with staff members – stopped as well.
Now, sadly, we have the White House and political campaigns cleaning up quotes before reporters are even allowed to publish their stories.
Peters’ article details what is really happening. Politicians are granting news outlets access only if they are allowed to first edit and approve their own statements.
He wrote, “Quote approval is standard practice for the Obama campaign, used by many top strategists and almost all midlevel aides in Chicago and at the White House – almost anyone other than spokesmen who are paid to be quoted. (And sometimes it applies even to them.) It is also commonplace throughout Washington and on the campaign trail.”
Peters continues, “The Romney campaign insists that journalists interviewing any of Mitt Romney’s five sons agree to use only quotations that are approved by the press office. And Romney advisers almost always require that reporters ask them for the green light on anything from a conversation that they would like to include in an article. ”
This entire process turns my stomach.
Wealthy news organizations can afford to travel with the president and with Gov. Romney. They want to show their bosses and the consumers of their news product that they have access.
The trade is clear: You give us the interview, and we will let you approve our reports.
We have all reviewed quotes with sources. It is done for the sake of accuracy. However, if an interview is taped, there is no need for reviews – unless it is to “clean up” a quote to please the news source.
The Associated Press has never allowed its journalists to clean up quotes that were accurate in the first place. Just this week, James Asher, the Washington bureau chief of McClatchy Newspapers put in force a policy regarding getting quote approval and the policy of Freedom of Information, or FOIA, requests.
In a letter to staff and readers he said, “These days government is trying mightily to constrain access to public information. Each of you has had no comments, demands for FIOAs that goes unanswered and worse. More recently our sources have been chilled by threats of leak investigations and some have endured full blown leak inquiries.”
Asher continued, “As advocates of the First Amendment, we cannot be intimidated into letting the government control our work. When The New York Times agreed with Bush Administration officials to delay publication of its story of illegal wiretaps of Americans until after the 2004 election, it did the nation a great disservice. Acceding to the Obama administration’s efforts to censor our work to have it more in line with their political spin is another disservice to America.”
Finally, McClatchy’s Asher said, “And judging from the controversy that has ensued from the disclosure of these requests, the people don’t like this, either.”
Helen Thomas gave me great advice when I first arrived at the White House. She said, “Ellen, a free press is necessary for democracy, and remember to never do anyone’s bidding.”
It seems that many in the news media are happy to do politicians’ and government’s bidding in exchange for access.
That kind of “journalism” will signal the end of our democracy faster than a rigged election. We don’t need it. Americans don’t want it. And it will ruin our free press – as well as our country.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Notable and Definitely Quotable
“Love is a force more formidable than any other. It is invisible / it cannot be seen or measured, yet it is powerful enough to transform you in a moment, and offer you more joy than any material possession could.”“Love is a choice you make from moment to moment.”
~Barbara De Angelis
| |||||
|
|
Monday, August 20, 2012
Meditation Monday #6
Meditating continues daily. Amazingly enough!
I haven't been sticking to the outline I gave a while ago as strictly as I did for many weeks. I still do the same meditations, almost every day (rare exceptions), but I don't do it in the same order every day. From what I've read, this is totally normal... if I were to be able to go to a studio and be taught by an instructor, the class would do different meditations each time depending on what the instructor felt should be done.
I sometimes add one particular meditation. It's called "Camel Ride" and feels quite nice. I probably NEED to add "Cat, Cow" because my spine feels so tight at the lumbar area, but I haven't made the room for it in my day as yet. I'm including "Camel Ride" below, in case you'd like to try it, too.
Today is day 77 since I began meditating. It is also day 49 since I added the conquering anger meditation to my routine.
I haven't been sticking to the outline I gave a while ago as strictly as I did for many weeks. I still do the same meditations, almost every day (rare exceptions), but I don't do it in the same order every day. From what I've read, this is totally normal... if I were to be able to go to a studio and be taught by an instructor, the class would do different meditations each time depending on what the instructor felt should be done.
I sometimes add one particular meditation. It's called "Camel Ride" and feels quite nice. I probably NEED to add "Cat, Cow" because my spine feels so tight at the lumbar area, but I haven't made the room for it in my day as yet. I'm including "Camel Ride" below, in case you'd like to try it, too.
Today is day 77 since I began meditating. It is also day 49 since I added the conquering anger meditation to my routine.
Modesty Isn't Only About Cothes
A previous post of mine entitled "The Way of the World," which showed up here just a few days ago on August 17, is sort of pre-requisite reading to fully understanding what I have to say now. I hope you'll check it out before you continue.
I've not been long in the effort to be modest in all ways one can be modest. Did you know modesty has to do with more than just the length of a skirt and the depth a neckline plunges on a shirt? If you knew it, you are now ahead of my learning curve of a few years ago. How could a girl brought up in the LDS Church not realize that modesty is about more than the choices of clothing?
To answer that question directly, I think it has everything to do with being direct and specific. All too often lessons are taught and specifics are not specified. Seriously. I love to think symbolically and figure things out and all, but when I'm being taught something (particularly as a youth who wasn't fully applying herself), I wasn't trying to figure things out overmuch. If it wasn't stated explicitly, I had a super easy time justifying myself.
Foolish? Yes. Of course. I never proclaimed perfection for myself. Neither in my past, nor in my present. In fact, I've oft repeated how imperfect and weak I am. In one post in particular, I declared my imperfection and weakness quite explicitly. In another, I half-heartedly tried to blame hormones for some of my bad behavior. These are only a couple examples of me publicly acknoweldging my own humanity and imperfection.
So, here I go again. I was a foolish youth. I didn't try as hard as I should've. I didn't apply myself to understanding the whisperings of the Holy Ghost. I didn't try to understand what oblique references to "things" meant because I, quite frankly, didn't want to know. And this, truly does include not wanting to fully understand what modesty meant and still means to God.
Since I'm the kind of girl who would rather have things spelled out and specified, that's what I do. Overmuch? Yes, probably. Especially (even more than now) in the past. But if you're like me, then maybe you'll be a little glad I've specified... and you might appreciate what I negatively refer to as "verbal vomit." I'm quite good at being 'sick' that way.
Modesty is about choosing God's way of doing things and being. It's about fitting into His mold, rather than seeking to belong among those who choose the great and spacious building. If we are Christ's, we will not be loved of the world. And if it seems that we are... then enjoy it. For it is as a perfect day: too soon over and never to return.
Do you know this truth, somewhere in the depth of you? Do you feel the witness of truth by the Holy Spirit? Do you know that God would have you speak quietly? Do you see that He would have you do and be so as not to purposefully draw attention to yourself? Do you feel the truth that He would have you clothe yourself with temperance, retraint, and fully covering all of your most special and sacred parts? Do you know the truth? Do you know that God will keep you from evil if you have chosen Christ and desire to be fully His and submit your whole Will to Him? Don't you know that once we are born of God we will always overcome the world, by faith!?!!
Modesty is about our attire. It's about the length of our skirt, the tightness thereof, the choice of pants (again with the tightness thereof), the choice of neckline and the amount of flesh we reveal to the world. It's about the length of our sleeves and the amount of our form that we choose to share with anyone who happens to look. But it's also about the words we use, how we speak them, the decible level we choose to apply when we utter. It's about the way we laugh. All in all, it's about the way we act... who we are. Are we seeking to be seen and noticed of the world? Do we desire that others around us should, us, admire? Are we trying to be pleasers of men? Or is what we do in constant devotion to God? Are we doing and being as we are and do for His glory. That's the question. End of story.
I've not been long in the effort to be modest in all ways one can be modest. Did you know modesty has to do with more than just the length of a skirt and the depth a neckline plunges on a shirt? If you knew it, you are now ahead of my learning curve of a few years ago. How could a girl brought up in the LDS Church not realize that modesty is about more than the choices of clothing?
To answer that question directly, I think it has everything to do with being direct and specific. All too often lessons are taught and specifics are not specified. Seriously. I love to think symbolically and figure things out and all, but when I'm being taught something (particularly as a youth who wasn't fully applying herself), I wasn't trying to figure things out overmuch. If it wasn't stated explicitly, I had a super easy time justifying myself.
Foolish? Yes. Of course. I never proclaimed perfection for myself. Neither in my past, nor in my present. In fact, I've oft repeated how imperfect and weak I am. In one post in particular, I declared my imperfection and weakness quite explicitly. In another, I half-heartedly tried to blame hormones for some of my bad behavior. These are only a couple examples of me publicly acknoweldging my own humanity and imperfection.
So, here I go again. I was a foolish youth. I didn't try as hard as I should've. I didn't apply myself to understanding the whisperings of the Holy Ghost. I didn't try to understand what oblique references to "things" meant because I, quite frankly, didn't want to know. And this, truly does include not wanting to fully understand what modesty meant and still means to God.
Since I'm the kind of girl who would rather have things spelled out and specified, that's what I do. Overmuch? Yes, probably. Especially (even more than now) in the past. But if you're like me, then maybe you'll be a little glad I've specified... and you might appreciate what I negatively refer to as "verbal vomit." I'm quite good at being 'sick' that way.
Modesty is about choosing God's way of doing things and being. It's about fitting into His mold, rather than seeking to belong among those who choose the great and spacious building. If we are Christ's, we will not be loved of the world. And if it seems that we are... then enjoy it. For it is as a perfect day: too soon over and never to return.
Do you know this truth, somewhere in the depth of you? Do you feel the witness of truth by the Holy Spirit? Do you know that God would have you speak quietly? Do you see that He would have you do and be so as not to purposefully draw attention to yourself? Do you feel the truth that He would have you clothe yourself with temperance, retraint, and fully covering all of your most special and sacred parts? Do you know the truth? Do you know that God will keep you from evil if you have chosen Christ and desire to be fully His and submit your whole Will to Him? Don't you know that once we are born of God we will always overcome the world, by faith!?!!
Modesty is about our attire. It's about the length of our skirt, the tightness thereof, the choice of pants (again with the tightness thereof), the choice of neckline and the amount of flesh we reveal to the world. It's about the length of our sleeves and the amount of our form that we choose to share with anyone who happens to look. But it's also about the words we use, how we speak them, the decible level we choose to apply when we utter. It's about the way we laugh. All in all, it's about the way we act... who we are. Are we seeking to be seen and noticed of the world? Do we desire that others around us should, us, admire? Are we trying to be pleasers of men? Or is what we do in constant devotion to God? Are we doing and being as we are and do for His glory. That's the question. End of story.
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Hope, Faith, Charity and... Let's Add Compassion
It's not that I'm trying to reorder the order or anything, but I've been thinking so much about standards both of the world and God's and the difference between what He would have and what is commonly accepted. Now, these thoughts pertain to lots of things, but I'm going to focus on what is most dear to my heart. That is, of course, God and Godly things.
So, one thing I feel like I've realized as a truth (right from the Bible) is that the Holy Trinity is really incomplete. You see, I believe God would still be who He and She are, but without man... well, God is not exactly a God. Do you see it? I mean, without man, who would worship God? Isn't being a God about accepting the glory that is your due of those who you have created? I think this is inherently necessary and part and parcel of the whole gig. Now, I'm not saying that God was less than He is without man... He simply wasn't quite what He is WITH man. Anyway...
Thus, my conviction has become that God, the Father, His son, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost and man constitute the geometry of completion... true unity and wholeness. So, instead of a triangle representing that which is complete and holy, a square, or, more appropriately, a basic diamond, is the more perfect representation of God. This seems more accurate, really, to me. For we rarely ever have any direct interaction with God, the Father. However, Christ and the Holy Ghost are more interactive with man. So, if we consider the most sacred geometric shape to be more of a diamond, man would be at one tip with God the Father at the opposite and Christ and the Holy Ghost on opposite points.
Changing this geometry really doesn't change much that IS. However, it does create room for more. For instance, there exists a triumverate of virtues that are commonly accepted as the most desireable and necessary. A trio, like the Godhead. But if we add man to the first, perhaps a fourth should be added to the most holy virtues, too. At least, this is what I've been thinking. And in my thinking, I've come to a decision. Compassion is the virtue that will join the exiting three. Now we have a quartet of the most necessary virtues.
And it makes perfect sense, really. If you have love, you must have hope. If you have love, you must have faith. If you have any one, you must have one of the others. So, too, I would argue, if any of the three are exstant, compassion will be also. Whether it be full-blown 'Mother Theresa' type compassion... or merely a spark that can burst into flame... it is there.
Just somethings I've been thinking about. What do you think about them?
LINKED
So, one thing I feel like I've realized as a truth (right from the Bible) is that the Holy Trinity is really incomplete. You see, I believe God would still be who He and She are, but without man... well, God is not exactly a God. Do you see it? I mean, without man, who would worship God? Isn't being a God about accepting the glory that is your due of those who you have created? I think this is inherently necessary and part and parcel of the whole gig. Now, I'm not saying that God was less than He is without man... He simply wasn't quite what He is WITH man. Anyway...
Thus, my conviction has become that God, the Father, His son, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost and man constitute the geometry of completion... true unity and wholeness. So, instead of a triangle representing that which is complete and holy, a square, or, more appropriately, a basic diamond, is the more perfect representation of God. This seems more accurate, really, to me. For we rarely ever have any direct interaction with God, the Father. However, Christ and the Holy Ghost are more interactive with man. So, if we consider the most sacred geometric shape to be more of a diamond, man would be at one tip with God the Father at the opposite and Christ and the Holy Ghost on opposite points.
Changing this geometry really doesn't change much that IS. However, it does create room for more. For instance, there exists a triumverate of virtues that are commonly accepted as the most desireable and necessary. A trio, like the Godhead. But if we add man to the first, perhaps a fourth should be added to the most holy virtues, too. At least, this is what I've been thinking. And in my thinking, I've come to a decision. Compassion is the virtue that will join the exiting three. Now we have a quartet of the most necessary virtues.
And it makes perfect sense, really. If you have love, you must have hope. If you have love, you must have faith. If you have any one, you must have one of the others. So, too, I would argue, if any of the three are exstant, compassion will be also. Whether it be full-blown 'Mother Theresa' type compassion... or merely a spark that can burst into flame... it is there.
Just somethings I've been thinking about. What do you think about them?
LINKED
Saturday, August 18, 2012
A Quote Worth Sharing
“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”
― Siddhārtha Gautama
― Siddhārtha Gautama
Friday, August 17, 2012
Five Things for Friday
1.
The garden. It's time to get it cleaned up a LOT more, seeds started, and swiftly set in the ground. It's that time. But I'm not getting it done. :( I'm just tired, yall! So very tired.
2.
If you don't already know about the problems with genetically modified organisms, I encourage you to become a tiny bit more informed by looking at this picture/posted. I hope it might inspire you to gather more information and become an informer about this truth. We need to know what's in our foods, but agribusiness has full-time lobbyists and we're not informed. It's lame and we need to fight to gain the information we should've always had ready and constant acess to!
3.
I continue to feel less and less anger and more control over my thoughts and feelings. I still struggle a lot, but the improvements continue and I feel they are increasing. I attribute the increasing swiftness of the change to my brain (becoming more Christ's, I believe and hope!) to the daily meditation that I have added to scripture and prayer. I'm grateful for this tool in my life!
4.
We've been microwave free for a few years now. Although it was difficult in the first few months to get used to using the stove and oven for everything, it's second nature now. And I would rather spend a little more time on our food than feel the great concern over the additional radiation and denaturalizaion of nutrients in our food that I felt from the time I learned about microwaves until we gave it up for good. I'm so grateful to have learned about this stuff quite a while ago! God is GREAT!
5.
I'm struggling with a bad attitude in some very specific areas of my life. Overall, not having a tough time, but the specific areas seems to cast a huge shadow over the rest. bah!!
The Way of the World
Just because it looks pretty... is attractive to the human eye, doesn't mean it's modest OR acceptable to God.
Modesty has been much on my mind lately. Predominantly because I read a post a while back (three or more weeks) about the subject and it just has NOT left my thoughts since. So, I figure maybe it would help to share my thoughts on the subject here... not that anyone will respond or share their ideas, but I can hope! :)
So... what is modesty, anyway?
1. moderation or self-restraint in action, statement, etc.; self-control. (there are two more definitions that do not pertain)
Modesty has been much on my mind lately. Predominantly because I read a post a while back (three or more weeks) about the subject and it just has NOT left my thoughts since. So, I figure maybe it would help to share my thoughts on the subject here... not that anyone will respond or share their ideas, but I can hope! :)
So... what is modesty, anyway?
mod·es·ty [mod-uh-stee] noun, plural mod·es·ties.
1. the quality of being modest; freedom from vanity, boastfulness, etc.
2. regard for decency of behavior, speech, dress, etc.
3. simplicity; moderation.
mod·est [mod-ist] adjective
1. having or showing a moderate or humble estimate of one's merits, importance, etc.; free from vanity, egotism, boastfulness, or great pretensions.
2. free from ostentation or showy extravagance: a modest house.
3. having or showing regard for the decencies of behavior, speech, dress, etc.; decent: a modest neckline on a dress.
4. limited or moderate in amount, extent, etc.: a modest increase in salary.
I have chosen to ignore the definition of decency because it is conveyed as something relative to the times, which definition is contrary to the truth: that truth is truth regardless of society's perspective at a given time.
To continue, I am sharing a few more definitions which seem pertinent to my point.
mod·er·a·tion [mod-uh-rey-shuhn] noun
1. the quality of being moderate; restraint; avoidance of extremes or excesses; temperance. (there are two more definitions, but they do not pertain)
mod·er·ate [adj., n. mod-er-it, mod-rit; v. mod-uh-reyt] adjective, noun, verb, mod-er-at-ed, mod-er-at-ing. adjective
1. kept or keeping within reasonable or proper limits; not extreme, excessive, or intense: a moderate price.
2. of medium quantity, extent, or amount: a moderate income.
3. mediocre or fair: moderate talent.
4. calm or mild, as of the weather. (there is one more definition, but not pertinent)
tem·per·ance [tem-per-uhns, tem-pruhns] noun
1. moderation or self-restraint in action, statement, etc.; self-control. (there are two more definitions that do not pertain)
While the following definition references some relativity, I think that which is negative to me about the definition will provide me a jumping-off point to discuss another aspect of the point.
ex·treme [ik-streem] adjective, ex-trem-er, ex-trem-est, noun
adjective
1. of a character or kind farthest removed from the ordinary or average: extreme measures.
2. utmost or exceedingly great in degree: extreme joy.
3. farthest from the center or middle; outermost; endmost: the extreme limits of a town.
4. farthest, utmost, or very far in any direction: an object at the extreme point of vision.
5. exceeding the bounds of moderation: extreme fashions.
re·straint [ri-streynt]
noun
1. a restraining action or influence: freedom from restraint.
2. Sometimes, restraints. a means of or device for restraining, as a harness for the body.
3. the act of restraining, holding back, controlling, or checking.
4. the state or fact of being restrained; deprivation of liberty; confinement.
5. constraint or reserve in feelings, behavior, etc.
re·strain [ri-streyn] verb (used with object)
1. to hold back from action; keep in check or under control; repress: to restrain one's temper.
2. to deprive of liberty, as by arrest or the like.
3. to limit or hamper the activity, growth, or effect of: to restrain trade with Cuba.
Now for my thoughts. Be you never thought I'd get around to it, eh?
I believe that modesty is not a subject where relativity or cultural norms are really pertinent. Should individuals have the right to practice their religion and cover themselves completely (like wearing a burka)? I believe they should be allowed to make this choice born of their own convictions. Yes, I acknowledge that one's own convictions are formed by numerous factors. Be that as it may, there are numerous women who choose and like to wear the coverings they wear.
God has a standard for the attire of men and women. I know this to be truth. If you do not believe this, you are entitled to your belief. However, if you are a truth seeker, then you must apply to the God of truth to know ultimate truths.
I know that through time immemorial man (and I do mean the males among us, primarily, though women have this problem as well) has misunderstood God's direction to him. I believe our God is a God of Love and tolerance, moderation, temprance, and all things that could be and are related to modesty. He would have us cover ourselves in such a way as to avoid drawing attention to ourselves.
Clothing is one way, through various means, that someone can draw attention to themselves. If we look to the microcosm of a public high school (especially one that does not have uniforms), we will find an environment that is representative (though arguably slightly extreme) of the world, at large. In high school there are those who group themselves according to certain similarities. I'm not exactly sure of all the current lingo, but I do know there were some groups that were readily identified by the following names: emo, prep, jock (female and male), straight edgers, pseudo-hippies, stoners, band geeks, punks, nerds, goths and more. Each group has its norm for attire. Does that mean that any of them are modest? Well, if modest is relative, then surely there is a sort of modesty in each group.
However, there is a true form of modesty that is outside of the relative or societal norms.
For instance, if a prostitute has a certain way of dressing to attract customers, then it seems to follow that women of virtue would steer clear of the kind of attire that prostitutes find helpful to their cause. Unfortunately, though, as history shows us, the devil is in the details. The devil would have us believe that something long considered unacceptable is attractive (at least in part BECAUSE it is successful in garnering business of the sort mentioned... so it must be attractive to men... so it is something women, in general, should use for their own purposes).
In the early days of this country, as a standard, virtuous women wore long skirts and/or dresses with long or quarter-length sleeves and necklines that were at their neck, all the time. Do I propose that only this is modest? No. But over time, the deceiver of our souls has led us (men and women) to believe that the way prostitutes of that time dressed is acceptable for all. Is this true? Certainly not entirely. And once a successful mode of making wrong into right has been determined, the process continues on. Prostitutes and pornography lead the charge in becoming ever less modest. The media touts the beauty of movie stars (in these modern days) and popular/well-known individuals (generally) as those people dress increasingly more and more like prostitutes and porn stars.
About 18 years ago, when I was a bit younger and wilder than I am now... it was significantly more difficult to find stilletos than it is now. I know because I wanted some. I did say I was wilder. Stilletos were, even such a short time ago, considered (generally) shoes best relegated to dress up for your husband and/or common shoe-wear for pole dancers, prostitutes, porn stars and call girls by the majority of generally virtuous women. Now, the most stylish women at church wear them. The shoes still serve their purpose (lengthen a woman's body, tighten her calves, raise and tighten her butt, require a particular curve in the back for stability which enhaces the breastline because the chest must be jutted out ever so slightly to maintain alignment created by the unnatural foot positioning that is par for the course in stilleto wearing 101). So, why is it acceptable to otherwise virtuous women to wear prostitute shoes publicly now, when it wasn't 18 years ago? Because the devil said so, I guess... in the same way he has led the charge to raise skirts (so now a long shirt that barely covers the gluteous maximus is a dress; basically the same as the '6os).
So what is modest attire anyway? What has modest always been? I think the latter question is really more important. One must completely understand what modesty of attire is... search knowledge, understanding and wisdom in this matter and then appeal to our Father God for confirmation of our understanding. I have found, in my search, that modesty in attire requires coverage of, minimally, all of the thigh (and over the knee), all breast-age, and full shoulder coverage (because of the proximity to breast-age and potential for accidentally showing that part of the body that is meant to be reserved for one's huband and breastfeeding babies. Additionally, choosing clothing that neither accentuates nor highlights the area of breast-age (especially in women). This last part means, really, that one would not wear tight and/or revealing clothing items if we are trying to be truly modest in our dress.
Is it easy for everyone to dress mosdestly? No. Of course not. For instance, I know big breasted women have a difficult time finding cleavage covering tops. However, difficult does not equate to impossible. Difficult is difficult. And if it became impossible to find modest clothing because the world's ways became so far divergent from God's that no modest clothing was readily available, does that mean that we then succumb to the world? I propose God's answer to that is: no. I'm certain He would have us develop talents and skills that would enable us to continue to do and fulfill His Will even when the world is far from Him.
Only recently (within the last 5 years), did I realize that modesty was about more than the cloth we can choose to place on our bodies. Since this post has become longer than I planned, I think the continuation of this subject must wait for another day.
Until then... what do you think?
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Thankful Thursday: August 2-16
I forgot to do this for a week. I hope it's only 1 I forgot. I'm forgetting lots recently. :(
So, week of Aug. 2... I'm thankful for my neice Kristen (birthday the 8th). She turned FOUR! I can hardly believe it!! I'm also grateful for the success of my extended Fast.
Week of August 9... I'm thankful for my Dad (birthday the 9th). He's 22 years older than me.
I'm also thankful for my Father-in-Love, for without him my Jessie wouldn't be quite who he is.
So, week of Aug. 2... I'm thankful for my neice Kristen (birthday the 8th). She turned FOUR! I can hardly believe it!! I'm also grateful for the success of my extended Fast.
Week of August 9... I'm thankful for my Dad (birthday the 9th). He's 22 years older than me.
I'm also thankful for my Father-in-Love, for without him my Jessie wouldn't be quite who he is.
Have You Heard?
If you've heard about THIS http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/illegal-kitchen-garden_n_1687558.html particular GARDEN http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/drummondville-couple-fights-to-keep-vegetable-garden-1.1211864 and the problems they have encountered, you might wonder why such a thing would happen. Other than the obvious (that the town/city has crappy laws), it's part of a great problem that all too many would like to label a conspiracy theory.
However, truth is truth however strange it sounds. Codex Alimentarius will eliminate supplements, the right to choose natural healing modalities, and (yes) back-yard (and front yard) gardens. It is also determined to make the populace of the world believe that nutrients are bad for us. It's true.
However, truth is truth however strange it sounds. Codex Alimentarius will eliminate supplements, the right to choose natural healing modalities, and (yes) back-yard (and front yard) gardens. It is also determined to make the populace of the world believe that nutrients are bad for us. It's true.
Live Local?
If you live local to this article http://www.palmcoastobserver.com/news/palm-coast/Neighborhood/081520125003/The-100-dresses-project , or you want to send a dress by snail mail (Postal Service), I'm sure they would be overjoyed to accept your donation. What a great service project!!!
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
What The Past Tells Us: YouTube
Please pay special attention to the bit just before 5minutes...
it's about what the media/news is to do according
to John F. Kennedy, Jr.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Happy Birthday Pop!
For your Cherokee parts:
May the warm winds of heaven blow softly upon your house.
May the Great Spirit bless all who enter there.
May your moccasins make happy tracks in many snows,
and may the rainbow always touch your shoulder.
For your German parts:
Wie schön, dass du geboren bist
Music and lyrics: Rolf Zuckowski - Additional lyrics by Ursula Dümmer
Literal, prose translation of the German lyrics
Today it can rain,
storm or snow,
because you yourself are beaming
like sunshine.
Today is your birthday,
that's why we're celebrating.
All your friends,
are happy for you.
Refrain:
How nice that you were born,
we would have really missed you otherwise.
how nice that we're all together;
we congratulate you, birthday child!
Our good wishes
have their purpose (reason):
Please stay long
happy and healthy.
Seeing you so happy,
is what we like.
There are tears
enough in this world.
Refrain:
How nice that you were born,
we would have...
Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday,
that doesn't really matter,
but your birthday comes only
once a year.
So let us celebrate,
until we're exhausted,*
Today there's dancing,
singing and laughter.
Refrain:
How nice that you were born,
we would have...
Another year older,
(but) don't take it so hard,
because when it comes to aging
you can't change anything anymore.
Count your years
and always remember:
They are a treasure,
that no one can take from you.
Refrain:
How nice that you were born,
we would have really missed you otherwise.
how nice that we're all together;
we congratulate you, birthday child!
*German idiom: "arbeiten, dass die Schwarte kracht" = "to work until one drops, lit., "to work until the rind cracks"
And since you were born American:
Happy birthday to you.
Happy birthday to you.
Happy birthday, dear Pop!
Happy birthday to you!
May the warm winds of heaven blow softly upon your house.
May the Great Spirit bless all who enter there.
May your moccasins make happy tracks in many snows,
and may the rainbow always touch your shoulder.
For your German parts:
Wie schön, dass du geboren bist
“How nice that you were born”
Music and lyrics: Rolf Zuckowski - Additional lyrics by Ursula DümmerLiteral, prose translation of the German lyrics
Today it can rain,
storm or snow,
because you yourself are beaming
like sunshine.
Today is your birthday,
that's why we're celebrating.
All your friends,
are happy for you.
Refrain:
How nice that you were born,
we would have really missed you otherwise.
how nice that we're all together;
we congratulate you, birthday child!
Our good wishes
have their purpose (reason):
Please stay long
happy and healthy.
Seeing you so happy,
is what we like.
There are tears
enough in this world.
Refrain:
How nice that you were born,
we would have...
Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday,
that doesn't really matter,
but your birthday comes only
once a year.
So let us celebrate,
until we're exhausted,*
Today there's dancing,
singing and laughter.
Refrain:
How nice that you were born,
we would have...
Another year older,
(but) don't take it so hard,
because when it comes to aging
you can't change anything anymore.
Count your years
and always remember:
They are a treasure,
that no one can take from you.
Refrain:
How nice that you were born,
we would have really missed you otherwise.
how nice that we're all together;
we congratulate you, birthday child!
*German idiom: "arbeiten, dass die Schwarte kracht" = "to work until one drops, lit., "to work until the rind cracks"
And since you were born American:
Happy birthday to you.
Happy birthday to you.
Happy birthday, dear Pop!
Happy birthday to you!
Monday, August 13, 2012
Meditation Monday
Meditating continues to go well, though not as strictly this past week as in weeks before. I simultaneously conducted a fast from food for 5 days while continuing to meditate. On the fifth day I felt so physically weak that I didn't think I could physically complete the 6 minutes that constitute the most intense parts of my series and so considered not meditating. However, I ended up meditating in a chair that provided a tiny bit of support and I was able to complete my minmum daily goal. YEAY! :)
One exception this week... I got sick on Saturday (running to the potty ALL day and even more through the night) and was very very tired and weak. I should've meditated early in the day, in which case I would've been able to complete my regular meditation. Shoulda, woulda, coulda... anyway, I did only a calm heart meditation. It was very short. But I did feel better for the doing. Still holding the coarse with daily meditation and making alterations and allowances as the day and evil thereof requires. :)
Today is day 70 of my meditation journey. It is also day 43 since I added the conquering anger meditation.
All in all, I highly recommend meditation for any and everyone. It is totally working for me! ^_^
Linked
One exception this week... I got sick on Saturday (running to the potty ALL day and even more through the night) and was very very tired and weak. I should've meditated early in the day, in which case I would've been able to complete my regular meditation. Shoulda, woulda, coulda... anyway, I did only a calm heart meditation. It was very short. But I did feel better for the doing. Still holding the coarse with daily meditation and making alterations and allowances as the day and evil thereof requires. :)
Today is day 70 of my meditation journey. It is also day 43 since I added the conquering anger meditation.
All in all, I highly recommend meditation for any and everyone. It is totally working for me! ^_^
Linked
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
statcounter
