#(also brief note: when i say he functions on Id its not that he lacks intelligence or the capacity to use it along with his ego/super ego)

[bottombaron]

whenever i think abt writing Nandor and i get going thru a series of sequences of him behaving like a well-adjusted, caring, adult i have to stop myself, backspace several mental paragraphs and remember that he's basically a semi-captive lion being observed in a nature documentary and he functions on 92% Id

[supergirlimaginesfic-blog]

Lena Luthor x reader (Preventative measures, and one welcome threat)

a/n: no one asked for this one either but... I’m gonna do the thing anyway just because, and I thought about how absolutely dumb it would be if you were this cool, unflappable bodyguard but you’d become profoundly useless the moment you saw Lena put her hair down or like, do something vaguely hot and you’d just... become totally non-functioning LOL

Anyway I’m a trash person and I have trash ideas so here’s the trash thing! It’s not all that serious, I wanted it to be all fun and giggles lmao. This is really indulgent and like, six different levels of unprofessional but then I realized THIS IS FIC WE CAN DO WHATEVER WE WANT Y’ALL!!! YAY!! it’s a little shorter and I think I can get away with making another part for it. Moreover though, I think Lena has had too many bouts with death and TBH I think she should just get a break dammit! Don’t we deserve better than that? Maybe we do... ;)

- - - - -

You would never really consider yourself a storyteller, but you’re beginning to understand that’s just what you’ve become. For all the questions people ask about your job, you have just as many anecdotes that for some reason, people find just absolutely fascinating.

Yours is a humble beginning - no, you didn’t always want to be a personal bodyguard. No, you didn’t go to school for it. Yes, like most things that have occurred in your life, opportunities presented themselves and you took the chance.

In fact, when you were five years old you were convinced you were going to be an astronaut when you grew up... or a dog-walker. You certainly did not think you’d be someone who was hired for the sole purpose of protecting vaguely important people you really had no idea about, nor could care to know about.

The job, you’ve realized in your own personal experiences, is a whole lot of rich people travelling around to gamble or to partake in other high-risk trade-offs, and still, you always think no one should have any right to carry around that much money, let alone own that much at all to warrant needing personal security in the form of another human being.

Still, it pays itself, and you couldn’t find yourself complaining heartily about the injustices of the wealthy elite and their various extravagances when you’ve made a comfortable life for yourself out of their paranoia.

As it was, you find yourself waking up at 5 in the morning for some ungodly reason you will never get used to - you know a good portion of your colleagues live for the thrill of going for a run in the early hours of the morning, rising before the sun and riding the high of productivity that a mere mortal civilian could never appreciate.

Perhaps, you think, that this logic made a mere mortal civilian out of you since you’ve pressed the snooze on your alarm five times and you’ve finally, but forcefully, shoved yourself out of your bed and onto your floor a good hour and a half later than you were ideally supposed to get up.

Still, even with your eternal vexation of having to be an early riser, you wake up significantly quicker than you think you would, and you give yourself credit for it everyday.

Your next assignment, you’ve been informed, is not necessarily a direct request - rather, you’ve been hired on behalf of someone else, which isn’t uncommon. You’ve yet to find out if your presence will be a surprise to your actual client in question, but that’s a problem for later, and that’s what your superiors are for.

You’re an armed bodyguard, and you’ll be working full-time which means you’ll be with your client for however long you’re required, and you’ll be sticking around them 24/7.

With your duffle bag already packed and your suits cleaned and pressed, you make your way into your Range Rover after you’ve made sure that your gun and your knife are both in their holsters hidden under your suit before you set off for the address that’s been sent to your phone.

For someone with rather impressive credentials and an even more eclectic resume of personalities you’ve been hired for, you’re still a little bit shocked when you discover yet another secret branch of the government - this time, you’ve been hired by an organization called the “DEO”, and you wonder just who exactly you’re supposed to be watching if every one of these agents is allegedly specially trained.

You’ve already been screened, processed, and vetted by the organization before they even considered hiring you through your company, who in their part were rather amenable to whatever the DEO wanted to do with you considering the hefty paycheck they were offering for your services.

Even still, you brandish your ID, your driver’s licence, and even your passport to the guards standing at the door, and watch as four guards examine your weapons, and two separate guards frisk your person for any other hidden contraband.

You take all your IDs out again for the people at the desk, and finally you’re escorted into a conference room lined with what you’re sure is a one-way mirror on all the walls where you’re sat across a tall black man with an inscrutable face.

He’s got your file on the table in front of him and he only glances down for a moment before he stares at you silently.

You stare back sitting perfectly still and relaxed in your chair and recognize the tactic for what it is. You don’t break eye contact with him as you wait for him to say something.

After what is seemingly a mildly uncomfortable amount of time to be silently staring at a stranger, the man speaks up and addresses you by name.

You nod your head in recognition and then he says, “Welcome to the DEO.”

“Thank you, sir.”

“I’m sure you understand, the entire process is lengthy but it is to ensure the utmost safety not just for our client but for yourself as well.”

“That’s understandable.”

“You may have also noted we’ve plenty of adequately trained agents here who would be more than qualified to do your job, but this is a matter of subtlety and we’ve thought it best to outsource a security detail rather than risk one of our agents for this particular duty.”

You nod again in acknowledgement - in its own variably twisted way, you’ve become used to being expendable, but that’s where the matter of you having to be good at your job comes in, so that you’re not expended.

After the brief conversation, if you would even call it that, the man stands up and approaches you with a hand outstretched, and you meet him halfway. He gives you a firm handshake and he passes a small, folded up piece of paper into your hand as he does so, and you ball your hand into a fist, not blinking at the exchange.

He sends you off and you realize you don’t know his name, but you suppose you don’t really need to know, and this time you don’t need to be escorted and you retrieve your belongings as you leave.

When you get back to your car, you unfold the paper and see just a singular thing written on it and you raise your eyebrows slightly at the sight. You rarely allow yourself personal opinions regarding your jobs, but you can’t help the anticipation and the wonder in your mind as you consider your new client.

You’re not exactly surprised, but your curiosity is getting the better of you gradually. You drive towards downtown with the tune of some Little Mix song stuck in your head for absolutely no definitive reason at all that you can think of apart from it just being a really damn catchy song, and you hum Black Magic quietly to yourself until you see the infamous “L�� on your target building.

You grab your own files and make your way inside the building once you’ve parked in their lot, your eyes squinting minutely in scrutiny at the evident lack of security in the lobby, and the only person around to question you is a guard doubling as a receptionist.

You sign your name on the list and hand the guard your ID as she examines your signature before allowing you to go through, not at all bothering to check anything else of you.

You figure you have to go to the top floor, so you wait in the elevator as it takes you up. When you get out, you scan the floor quickly before you make your way toward the desk.

The secretary glances up at you and double-takes as if trying to determine your face. She furrows her eyebrows and you take the distraction to read the gold-plated name plate on her desk that says “Jessica”.

You look back to her and you watch as her eyes blatantly trail up and down your figure, not once but twice, and her expression is otherwise unreadable apart from the slight quirk of her eyebrow when her gaze lands back on your face.

She’s silent for a moment before she speaks up, “Ms. Luthor requires an appointment ahead of time, which is usually within a week or two depending on the urgency of the matter.”

You feel the scrutiny of her gaze again as her eyes trail over you again, and you clear your throat when you remember you’re supposed to say something.

“Right, of course. I guess it should be expected that my arrival is a bit of a surprise, sorry, here-” you say, as you reach for your business card, your official letter from your company, as well as your contract with redacted names of the DEO’s involvement and your ID.

You place them all onto her desk and she regards them with a look you know is pretty much universal of and who do you think you are exactly?, which is usually only ever present at the tail end of the sentiment that begs the question what nerve?

Her eyes never leave yours as she reaches for your papers, her eagle-eyed watch on you shifting with expressions of doubt and disbelief as she finally looks down and reads for a moment, taking note of the official stamps and signatures on your papers as she looks at your ID. Eventually, she puts it on her photocopier and waits.

“These mean nothing,” she says.

Despite yourself, you smile widely at the observation as she continues.

“These could all be fake, but at least I’ll have a copy of your alleged identity.”

You reply, still grinning, “I assure you, that’s the least of my intentions, but I commend your diligence.”

She squints her eyes at you and the printer continues humming, obtrusively loud given the near dead-silence of the room apart from the printer. You see her jaw tick and she tilts her head imperceptibly, you know this as a slight act of defense.

“I’m not paid to trust anyone.”

You almost laugh, catching yourself before you do, and you just smile at her show of tenacity.

“I guess you and I have that in common then,” is all you say.

For what it’s worth, you think this secretary, Jess, is more than enough to make up for the lack of security downstairs. If you were a weaker person, you knew you’d crumble under her interrogative stare.

She merely hums in dissent as the copying finally finishes and she hands back your original, not before demanding you to sign and date her copy of your ID.

“Don’t think you can just walk in here and pretend to be some third-party hire, I’m not stupid and Ms. Luthor certainly isn’t either - you’re not the only person with the lame, trite idea to do so,” she stares you down meaningfully and waits a moment to see that you’re still following.

She gestures vaguely to the space around her, “there are cameras in every nook and cranny of these offices you’re not aware of, and they will be used as proof to corroborate any shenanigans you think you can pull, and I will personally build a case against you myself if you think to try anything out of line here.”

She shoots a hardened stare at you and you just feel the unspoken don’t test me that pierces through you, and you really think you’re beginning to respect this secretary under all your amusement.

You nod your agreement and still try to assuage her aggression, but you know it might be for naught.

All she gives you is an unimpressed, “mhm,” before she’s picking up her phone and looks at you disinterestedly as if to convey that your abrupt interruption has inconvenienced an entire empire’s worth of productivity.

“Ms. Luthor, you have a guest just before your next meeting, I’ve deemed six minutes to be enough for this brief appointment,” she pauses, and then, “of course, Ms. Luthor.”

She hangs up and gives you the go ahead to walk into the office, but not before she sends you a final warning look and you nod in acknowledgement.

“Thank you,” you say when you collect your things and make your way to the door.

You knock before a muffled “come in” is heard from the office, and you wait a moment before you open the door and go through.

Lena Luthor sits at her desk and types momentarily before finishing up whatever it was she was doing and she looks up at you, smiling pleasantly as she stands.

You know you don’t show it, but your breath hitches just the slightest when you get a look of her face and her pale blue-green eyes take you in.

“To what do I owe this pleasure?” she asks you.

“The pleasure is mine, Ms. Luthor. My name is (Y/N), I’m not at liberty to disclose anything at this very moment, but I do have several documents you can read to inform yourself of your new arrangement, and after then we can discuss any questions you have, should there be any outstanding,” you say as you hand the file folder to her, taking your cue as she motions for you to sit in the chair across her desk.

She looks at the folder questioningly and glances back up at you, an expression of total confusion on her face which tells you enough of her knowledge of the real reason for your presence.

Apparently, all it’s taken for her is one glance at your company’s letterhead as well as the non-redacted version of the DEO’s contract for you before she sighs in recognition.

“I suppose this isn’t totally out of left field. I’ve insisted this isn’t required but it looks like they’ve deemed otherwise,” she says with a bit of a wry smile.

“I understand,” you say, and you do.

You don’t really know what it’d be like to have other people making decisions for you, and now that you think about it, it is just a little bit messed up when other people get involved and make you do things without your prior knowledge.

You think you feel for her a little bit then.

“Well, now that you’re here, I don’t intend on making this any more uncomfortable or unpleasant than it needs to be - this isn’t exactly my first song and dance. If we’re going to be around each other for as long as we will be, we can skip the formalities, if you’re okay with that, that is.”

“Of course, Ms. Luthor.”

She cocks her eyebrow and smiles expectantly, you blink and clear your throat when you have to snap yourself out of your little daze.

“Right... Lena.”

She regards you a moment longer than necessary and smiles again, softer this time, and remembers herself.

“Now, I suppose I should let my secretary know I’m still alive - though there is always that slim window of opportunity in which you severely harm me in the moment between now and when I walk towards my boardroom, but if you do spare me that, you’ll see I’ll be dealing with an equivalent small death in the form of an unsavoury businessman,” she tells you as she moves to collect her belongings and your file which she places at the bottom of her pile.

You smile at her admission, “I could be wrong, but it seems as though aggressive vigilance is a trait shared between you and your secretary.”

Still, you take a mental of the alleged businessman and you wonder if you have to step in at all, but you figure that’s not the type of tussle you need to get into.

You follow Lena as she walks through her door and she smiles at Jess as she passes by, Jess smiling back and instantaneously reverting to a neutral expression when her glance falls on you, and your mouth quirks slightly into a small smile.

She stops abruptly and you’re just several paces behind her when she sighs deeply, bracing herself for whatever this meeting holds and your day officially begins.

“Mr. Heaton,” Lena greets the man in the room.

“Lena,” he all but grunts back.

You take your place by the side of the door and you already feel mild irritation at the man.

You watch as Lena takes the man’s verbal pestering in stride and he’s practically hounding her, using poorly disguised intimidation tactics that you’re sure she can see through, and she continues to smile and correct the man when necessary.

Sometimes, and there are many instances, you’ve seen a threat of a challenge rise across Lena’s face, but it’s gone as quickly as you could spot it, and she merely leans further back into her chair which apparently only aggravates the man further.

You watch as he leers and begins to fall into taunts, downright refusing to entertain pleasantries as he presses harder and continues to push Lena’s buttons in some low blow attempt at undoing her.

You realize then just how differently the businessmen you’ve protected act around each other and how they act when they’re around a woman who is not only their equal but could in fact be a superior.

You can only watch in growing distaste as you watch Lena duck and dodge each thinly veiled accusation and every unsolicited comment, and you know very well your job doesn’t involve saving people from heckling in the form of business matters, but objectively, you wish you could knock this guy out into a sleep.

Still, you’re silent as you keep your post by the door, only able to watch the ordeal and you can only imagine how Lena must feel - she must be used to it by now, and somehow, the thought makes you more repugnant about the state of the world which really, is a bit of an impressive thing to do to you, as your being jaded of the current state of affairs leaves little room for surprise cynicism.

Before you can even contemplate the blatant injustices of corporatism and the workplace and society, Lena can probably detect your growing enmity radiating toward the other two occupants of the room and she cuts the meeting’s end, graciously thanking Mr. Heaton for his time and she will be in contact with him within the next month or so.

You watch as he gets up slowly, ogling Lena’s figure shamelessly and the tension gets heavier when neither refuse to extend a hand for a handshake.

He merely moves to leave after he’s done eyeing her, and then he looks at you, but you’ve already moved your gaze politely toward a spot on the wall ahead of you.

He moves in a way that will force your look, you pull your gaze to meet his and your jaw involuntarily clenches at the sight of him and his unwarranted arrogance.

You tilt your head slightly in challenge and in question, wordlessly beckoning him both to walk away but also to try something on you, just so you can feel some satisfaction of roughing him up just a little bit.

He opts for the smarter option and moves on without further fuss, and seemingly both you and Lena relax at his departure.

“Never again, please,” Lena says to no one in particular as she rubs at her temples.

She turns her chair to face you, and then she’s got her face in her hands as she inhales deeply. The rattling from your suit jacket makes her look up and you hold out a small migraine pill bottle to her and she smiles.

“Do you honestly carry that around everywhere or is that just for me?”

“Not necessarily, I could benefit from them too.”

She huffs a small laugh at your remark, “strange, I thought you were all supposed to be elite super-soldiers with no ailments, or without ties to the human condition.”

You smile easily, “that might be easier, but then that’d take away the basic human element of compassion, and I think that’s a pretty integral part they don’t teach you when you’re meant to be protecting people’s lives with your own.”

“You make it sound like it’s not about the money,” Lena says cheekily.

“Oh, don’t get me wrong, the money is so great,” you say as you smirk conspiratorially. “But it’s easy to get jaded and lose track of yourself and the big picture - the difference between me and a machine is that I choose to do this.”

“Don’t you ever think what you do isn’t worth it?” she asks.

“Often... more than I’d willingly admit. Majority of the time, my presence isn’t ‘worth it’ or really necessary. I’m usually just for peace of mind, and I think that’s well worth it to be safe than to err on the side of risk.”

She looks at you and is silent as she thinks of your observation, before she smiles again.

“Right, of course,” she says dubiously.

“And I mean, usually I’m hired by people to protect them or their things or whatever else you could think of. You start to see a pattern if you do this enough times, you get to see what really matters to people when they think they’re in danger.”

You pause, realizing you might be speaking just a little out of line, but you can’t really go back on it now.

“I think, in this case, if nothing else comes from me being around you, I think one thing you can take from this is that there are people out there who care a lot about you and want the best for you.”

Lena looks at you and searches your face, her expression significantly softer than you’d seen it throughout the entire meeting.

“And you’re saying you’re the best?” she finally asks jokingly.

“That would be your words, not mine,” you grin at the jest. “I can only try to be better than I am at this moment.”

She hums in consideration, smiles at you again.

“Alright, poet, how about we get through the rest of this day and you can tell me all of your ruminations of life after.”

Before you know it, she’s stood up and gathered her belongings, walking swiftly past you and you fall in step behind her.

The remainder of the day is spent with no more aggravations, the rest of her company and her tasks are much more agreeable than the one unruly man you unfortunately had to witness that morning.

Lena insists that you sit on the couch, or at the very least pull up a chair beside the door if you really ought to be right there, but you decline and instead opt to switch up your posts in a way that is still in a good proximity to the door and with your eye to her balcony.

You begin to get the idea that perhaps you’re making her a bit nervous, and you concede and feel guilty about distracting her when you glance towards her, but she’s still typing away steadily at her computer, occasionally pausing to write notes.

Sometimes, you catch her gaze, and sometimes she catches yours, and more and more often you’re both just glancing at each other and the day passes with the cyclical give and take.

Eventually, it’s time to go home, and you’re rather surprised the infamous CEO Lena Luthor is going home at a decent time, but you decide to keep your presumptions to yourself.

When you reach the parking lot, you look up at the sky under the guise of taking in the night, taking note that there is very minimal possibility of some aerial attack.

You look around the parking lot and feel mildly uneasy about the vastness of space where you can just see all the possibilities of an ambush and how they would pan out.

Still, it remains quiet and Lena walks wordlessly beside you, the light rhythmic tapping of her heels the only sound that you can distinguish.

You scan your surroundings only moving your eyes, using the most of your peripherals and not bothering to turn your head as you walk calmly to your SUV.

You raise a hand to gesture Lena to stop - you’re alone on this task, and you figure if something were to happen to your car at this moment, having Lena in such a close proximity is a bit of a moot point, but you figure at least you’ll have her in your sights.

You turn your back on her briefly, wanting to make this quick - you get to the ground swiftly and check under your car with a flashlight, searching for some telltale flashing or anything out of place behind your tires, in the rims, anywhere else something can be hidden.

You glance to see her heels still near you, and when you get up she looks at you with perplexity and vague amusement, but she thanks you nonetheless when you open the car door for her.

She gets into the backseat and you lock the door briefly - you know that the habit is a bit pedantic but you also know if there are people who are as equally skilled as you are, all they need is just a few seconds of opportunity for everything to go haywire.

Still content that you’re alone in the lot, you unlock your car again and get in quickly, locking the door again and turning on the ignition in one fluid motion before you’re driving away from the lot.

Seemingly instinctively, you start humming to yourself again, and it’s still the same song you’ve had stuck in your head all day and you wonder if you’ll go to sleep with that as your final thought.

You drive around several blocks to see if anyone could be following you, but when you’re satisfied that no one is going to spontaneously tail you, Lena finally fills the silence.

“You’re not lost, are you?”

“No, I’ve memorized several different routes to take in varying emergencies, and I have a few back up plans for several worst case scenarios.”

“There can be more than one worst cast scenario?” Lena asks.

You take a very brief moment to glance in the rearview mirror at Lena and give her a small, tight-lipped smile. You look away again and scan the streets and the sidewalks, looking for something you might not find - and you hope you wouldn’t.

“Have you ever had to kill someone?”

You smile and shake your head. Her small talk really gets straight to the point, but you entertain her.

“No, I haven’t. I’ve drawn my weapon a handful of times though, can count the instances on one hand. That’s like the last thing you should do, and shoot only when our lives are in immediate danger.”

Lena hums, and then, “that must be quite scary for you. I don’t know how you’d deal with that.”

Involuntarily, you recall the ordeal with Lena and the Venture explosion, and the whole debacle of her brother’s attempts on her life and how she’d shot an assassin in a police uniform.

You look up into the mirror and see her gaze fixed outside her window.

“Well, you do what you have to do to survive. It’s not just self-preservation, it’s going against every instinct of your being that’s telling you to be fearful and to be at the mercy of your peril. Surviving against the odds means having to be your own hero in your most dire moment.”

Lena’s quiet for a moment, and you start to wonder if you’ve said too much.

“Is that how you manage your feelings with your job?”

“I just convince myself the money is worth it,” you say jokingly.

“I don’t believe you do it because of that though,” Lena says, and you glance into the mirror again and catch her gaze.

“You may think you do it because of the money, and you think your mask of selfishness can safeguard you, but personally, I think what you do is one of the most selfless acts of service.”

You’re quiet for a moment and you ponder Lena’s remarks. You appreciate it, and you understand it, but you don’t want to admit what it might really be - you haven’t wanted to admit it aloud for a long while.

“Or it’s just the reckless disregard of my life,” you mutter softly.

You don’t think Lena’s heard you when she says nothing, and it’s quiet for another moment before she speaks again.

“Whatever it is, you still do it because you choose to and not because you’ve been programmed to. The difference between you and a machine is that you can fathom gratitude, and the reward, and the risk and consequence of doing what you do. However way you twist it, that seems like the markings of a hero, don’t you think?”

You continue driving, your eyes still scanning your surroundings and even without the distraction of vigilance, you don’t think you have anything of substance to reply to Lena.

There’s a lull in the conversation and you hum the song that’s been stuck in your head all day, the steady rise and fall of your chest as you breathe putting you in a calm state of mind - you’re close to Lena’s loft.

“I didn’t take you for a Little Mix fan,” she says suddenly, and you’re overcome with the sudden, overwhelming desire to punch yourself in the face for how instantly you blush at her comment.

“I didn’t take you for one to recognize a song,” you retort, hoping you don’t sound too defensive.

You don’t need to look up in the mirror to hear Lena’s smile when she replies.

“Not me, no. It’s my friend, Kara. She has such an affinity for pop music and boy bands and girl groups.”

You huff in laughter and clear your throat, more than relieved to be pulling up to the private parking entrance below the building.

When you park in the lot she points out, you do your routine of getting out first and locking the door, checking around you, and unlocking the door and letting Lena out when your evaluation of the place is to your standards, and she thanks you again as she gets out.

She leads the way as you get into an elevator that will take her directly to the loft level, and you wait with your suits and your duffle bag in hand.

When she stands in front of her door with her key in hand, she waits expectantly and with great humour, watches as you acknowledge her silently.

You put the hangers for your suits in your mouth and bite down to hold them, your duffle bag hangs on your shoulder as you brace with your one hand hovering just near your concealed gun and the other in the ready position for an attack.

You look ridiculous, refusing to let her carry any of your belongings, and when she unlocks the door, you make quick work of going through without busting her door and you inspect the immediate area because you just never know.

You can’t ever get out of work mode, but Lena practically forces you to be casual when she walks past you with a smirk on her face and moves to take her coat off and shuck her heels off in one motion.

You decide it’s finally time to stop looking dumb and you take the hangers from your mouth. You look around the loft most definitely by virtue of having to know the space well and not at all to take in whatever personal stories you can parse from Lena’s home.

Lena’s voice comes from somewhere down the hall, “I wasn’t expecting a sleepover tonight, you can go ahead and order whatever food you’d like, I’ll foot all the expenses.”

You feel yourself flush again and you wonder if it was just absolutely necessary for her to word it like that, but you still linger around the space and wait for something to do.

“You’re like a vampire, aren’t you? Am I to invite you to do everything? You can put your belongings away, you know,” she says as her head pops up from around the corner, her eyes teasing as she watches.

“Of course,” you say, but you still don’t move.

You’re quickly becoming aware of how really useless you are not only when pretty girls are concerned, but when pretty girls are concerned and you’re meant to be around them in a job setting, but the entirety of you is wishing for circumstances that were anything but a job setting.

You ought to reel yourself back in; you know quite well how your superiors would react if they caught wind of your current misgivings.

You stand up straighter and fix yourself in an attempt to snap out of whatever inappropriate reverie you’re in, and you’re still standing awkwardly near the front door when you see Lena again in sleeping shorts and a loosely hanging shirt.

She looks at you quizzically when she sees your stare, an amalgamation of question and realization when she seems to figure out your expression.

“Darling, don’t tell me you thought I slept in business attire?” she says teasingly.

You’re slowly losing most of your senses and you’re reeling at her term of endearment, and you don’t even realize she’s come up to you until she’s just under your gaze - she’s a bit shorter now without her high heels.

“Not all of us sleep in our formal suits,” she says as she pats you on your chest. Your eyes widen even more and you don’t realize you’re holding your breath until she saunters away, smirking at your apparent uselessness.

“And please at least set your things down, you’re making me nervous just standing there for as long as you have.”

Finally, you concede and you find the least intrusive place to put your duffle bag and your suits. Lena gives you a slightly admonishing look when you let your suits crinkle on their place in a chair, and she takes them wordlessly and hangs them in her coat closet and eyes you meaningfully to make sure you don’t take them back.

After a round of polite, but suspiciously playful bickering about delivery choices that feels too familiarly domestic, Lena’s finally convinced you to sit on her sofa and you’re eating pizza on the farthest end of the couch as she looks on at you amused between commercial breaks of whatever TV show she’s left on.

She’s allowed herself one glass of wine tonight, to which you’ve adamantly declined for yourself and she doesn’t give too much of an argument.

At some point in the night, Lena’s fallen asleep curled up on the couch and you saw the progression of it but still didn’t say anything. Now, you can’t exactly suggest for her to transfer to her bed, and you most definitely will not carry her there, but you contemplate the pros and cons and even you know rather well how inconvenient a sore neck is from an uncomfortable sleeping position.

You’re a coward, however, and instead of waking up a peaceful slumbering woman you opt to just take the blanket that’s draped over the couch behind you and put it onto her sleeping form, and you suppose it’s safe enough to just stand up to get her a glass of water.

When you come back with the water and have shut off the rest of the lights in her loft, she’s murmuring in her sleep and breathing slightly erratically.

You merely watch and wait for it to subside, but she only gets louder and more distressed, and you realize she’s having some sort of bad dream and you move to rouse her from it when she wakes fully and sits up roughly to get her bearings.

Her breaths come fragmented and hollow when she looks around her, and she startles before realizing who you are and you suspect that your hovering presence is probably not the most comforting sight in a dark room after having a nightmare.

“Sorry,” you murmur quietly, “I was just getting you water, I guess you were having a bad dream.”

Lena just rubs a hand over her face, and you can see the exhaustion in her eyes illuminated by the TV light. You hand her the glass without another word as you take your place beside her.

She thanks you softly before setting it on the coffee table after she’s taken a sip.

She moves to lay down on the couch again and you’re just a little late in remembering to use your voice, but you think you know better than to appeal to a sleepy woman and you just let her fall asleep beside you.

You’ve left your gun and knife stuffed into your side of the sofa in between the cushion and the couch.

You took off your jacket and dress shirt some time in the evening and it left you in a white tank top. You know better than to sleep in your suit pants, but you just can’t bring yourself to change into something else - not when you’re fine as you are anyway and it’s not totally imperative to sleep in something comfortable.

You suppose you’re not going to do much sleeping anyway, which is a bit of a bad idea especially on your second day of the job, but there’s a plethora of reasons why you can’t sleep and these reasons will keep you up for an undetermined amount of time.

Eventually, somewhere between 4am and 5am you suspect, you finally fall asleep sitting up with your arms crossed and your head leaning back against the couch.

At 6am, you open your eyes just briefly to find Lena’s changed positions in the night and her head is pressed up against your leg, and you grin sleepily as you fall back to sleep.

About an hour or so later, you wake up to some commotion and your eyes snap open, you stand up quickly and realize that was probably not the best thing to do the very first thing in the morning.

Lena’s gone, but you smell something coming from the kitchen and you turn around and see her working around the space, coffee and a plate of food in hand and she finally notices your figure.

“I suppose one con of working for me is having to get up when I do,” she says in jest.

“There’s coffee, I don’t think I’m complaining,” you say hoarsely, your voice still rough with sleep.

You watch as she works easily, her hair tied up in a messy bun and her shirt just a little lopsided as it hangs off a shoulder. You know you’re staring, but you’re waiting for her to tell you to come over and sit.

She feels your gaze on her and smirks when she looks up, raising her eyebrows slightly in expectation as she tilts her head to beckon you to get over here.

You decide you’re a little bit too sleep deprived to deal with whatever hold Lena’s apparently got on you, and the whole point of you is to make sure nothing surprises you, but this is a fight you’re willing to concede.

You sit down tentatively and she smiles, her gaze lingering on you unabashedly and she nudges a cup of coffee to you.

You regard her soft, pale eyes trailing over you. You’re captivated by how objectively beautiful she looks, a total juxtaposition of the sharp, cultivated lines of power and grace you’ve seen of her business look.

You can merely sit there wordlessly and watch her taking you in.

“How do you like it?”

“What?” your eyes widen and you try to ignore the blush that’s rushing to your face - somehow, you’ve successfully managed to trip over one simple word.

Lena smiles widely, an eyebrow raised in what you realize is a look you’ve seen too often and one that could very well cause trouble for you.

“Your coffee, how do you like it?” she elaborates.

You blink owlishly at her and then your eyes snap down at the cup.

“Right, uh, just two cream one sugar.”

Lena still hovers near you, leaning closer as she reaches for the cream and sugar containers and your eyes widen again with bated breath.

You know for certain Lena’s aware of your inner turmoil, what with her hyper-focused attentiveness on you, and you thank her feebly as you take a drink and try to make you burning your tongue on it look gracefully intentional.

You’re a mess and you both know that.

“Are you ready for another day with me?” she asks innocently enough when she’s finally sat down near you.

No, this is more difficult than I’d thought, and for entirely different reasons, you think.

“Of course, hopefully it’s as smooth sailing as yesterday,” you manage to say.

You think you should pat yourself on the back for your great effort of composure, and you’ve got this. You’re finally getting back into the swing of things and doing your job like you were meant to.

Just then, Lena winks at you and smiles behind her coffee cup, and the crashing revelation of you don’t got this comes falling all at once and you inhale sharply at her teasing.

You smile back - perhaps it’s more of a grimace, in reassurance and Lena’s eyes dance with mirth.

She picks up a piece of french toast with her fork and you demand your entire body to ignore the elegant fluidity of her motion - however, that requires physically moving your entire self away which is more work than you care to do at this time of the morning, so you concede to watch, fixated and entranced.

You have to tear your eyes away when your gaze lands on her lips. Frankly, you’re quite impressed by how close you are to falling off your chair even when you’ve been completely still, but it’s when her tongue comes out and licks the maple syrup from her lips that makes you feel like the entire Earth is shaking.

You understand, then, that you have only two options to deal with this arrangement, and it goes as such: you can make things difficult for yourself and deny every blatant reaction you feel to literally anything Lena does, or you can go along for the ride and fight worthier battles.

You concede to the latter and watch as Lena still misses the drip of syrup that’s fallen a little below her lip, and you wordlessly get a napkin and reach over to her slowly, her eyes widening imperceptibly as she watches you approach.

You bring your hand close to her mouth and linger, making eye contact with her and grinning slightly before you wipe the errant syrup away.

Lena looks at you, her jaw slightly slack, as you lean back and continue to work through your breakfast, smirking at your own apparent hold on her, and you really wonder just how much more interesting this job will get.

[whittlebaggett8]

How Trump and Xi Will Shape US-China Relations

When the early 21st century has witnessed important change in global relations, possibly the most fascinating relationship to observe in coming many years will be that among the United States and China. It depends upon the distinctive personal character of each individual nation’s president – a single who has properly altered his country’s constitution to make certain his rule outside of two consecutive terms, the other who has confidently mentioned that when it arrives to his country’s international relations, “I’m the only one particular that matters.”

Any calculation of the class of U.S.-China relations over the upcoming number of a long time ought to factor in the character of Xi Jinping and Donald Trump, both as men and women and as prospective allies or rivals. Each individual leader considers himself a maverick inside of his have system, guiding their respective nations by a time of historical significance. A person is new to politics and diplomacy however oversees the globe’s established electricity nation. The other is a savvy political operator (both equally nationally and internationally) however oversees a rising ability nation. How these men interact is important, specifically thinking about the shared individual traits that will shape their nation’s objectives and resolve.

Initial, the two have a potent need to distinguish them selves from their predecessors and decide on their personal route. Even though former President Barack Obama continued George W. Bush’s regional technique and ongoing consultative strategy with the Condition Division, Trump prefers to go his own way and seek out his own counsel. In fact, he normally takes apparent pride in doing things as otherwise as achievable to preceding presidents. Meanwhile, in sharp distinction to two many years of reputable Communist Occasion management – specifically Hu Jintao’s understated, outdated-faculty solution – Xi’s leadership has been marked by a feeling of self-assurance and simplicity, which has authorized him to glide very smoothly into the position of intercontinental statesman.

Having fun with this post? Click right here to subscribe for comprehensive entry. Just $5 a thirty day period.

This shared part is likely to provoke regard in both equally leaders, as each individual unique acknowledges this motivational drive in by themselves and the effects it can have on establishing a new chapter of ability politics in Asia. These types of sentiment harks back again to Trump’s reviews at a 2018 Pennsylvania political rally, on China’s sanctions in opposition to North Korea: “China has done much more for us than they have ever finished for any other [U.S.] president and I respect that.” Last 7 days, inspite of the present-day tensions developed by bilateral trade negotiations, Trump discovered the time to publicly accept “a beautiful letter” he gained from Xi.

Second, Trump and Xi share a perseverance for making their own mark by modifying the character of the institutions they guide. In only 6 years, Xi Jinping’s management has been punctuated by anti-corruption strategies, which have successfully taken out his rivals, and (most not too long ago) a legal update that could see him top the region and its military services for the indeterminate long run. Trump’s mere 27 months in the White Dwelling have revealed his penchant for staying unpredictable, unplanned, and (some would say) uninformed. He speedily voiced his absence of interest in current international plan protocols, this kind of as everyday intelligence updates and the use of briefing textbooks. He’s also designed it crystal clear that in phrases of political session, he enjoys conflict and discussion rather than consensus.

This shared appreciation for disruption has the prospective to become demanding, specially Trump’s “America First” technique to trade and tariffs, but ought to continue being a workable factor of the romantic relationship. The most modern proof came through Chinese Vice Leading (and main trade negotiator) Liu He’s visit to Washington and Trump’s opinions at a White Household press function reinforcing his partnership with Xi and their intention to speak immediately about trade negotiations.

Probably the biggest challenge emanating from Trump’s very own way of executing issues, from a overseas relations point of view, is his incapacity to use the specialist counsel of the State Division. Extensive delays in appointing ambassadors throughout the Asia Pacific (these kinds of as South Korea and Australia) have placed needless tension on mid-degree team and conveyed a deficiency of interest in the area. Trump’s incapacity to appoint excellent advisers that enjoy the context of regional politics, heritage, and society (particularly among nations around the world these as South Korea and Japan) will not be lost on Xi, who is savvy ample to exploit this weakness for all it is truly worth.

Third, each leaders truly feel the weight of historical national legacy and a nostalgia for a China or America of an additional time. For Xi, it is an period in which China’s final two imperial dynasties shaped the region’s trade and diplomacy through a effective tributary program and far-flung imperial navy. Trump is haunted by more the latest memories of the United States’ rosy past. When asked by the New York Times’ David Sanger when America’s protection footprint and trade were final “great,” his reply was “the late ‘40s and ‘50s [when] we were being revered by every person, we had just won a war.”

This attribute will existing the finest challenge for the two leaders, as they chase the spectres of the glory days in an period of globalized trade, inter-regional trade networks, and intricate multipolar strategies to overseas policy. In a entire world where multilateral buying and selling blocs these types of as NAFTA, the European Union, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership dominate world trade, the time has passed for behemoth nations that can manipulate international trade at no expense to on their own.

These 3 shared qualities will determine not only how the United States and China interact in coming several years but also how electricity politics will be done in a area that is now property to 60 percent of the world’s population and by 2050 is predicted to present 50 % the globe’s GDP.

Will their interactions throughout Asia be symmetrical or asymmetrical? Where by will they meet up with and in which will they diverge? The solutions lie in 3 vital regions of regional stress.

North Korea

Even though developments on the Korean Peninsula have supplied an possibility for the two leaders to collaborate, this difficulty raises numerous troubles for an inexperienced Trump administration. The U.S. president believes his unpredictability (some would get in touch with it a lack of policy) presents him an higher hand in negotiations as there is no playbook for his opponents to refer to.

On the other hand, in excess of time this design – alongside with his disinterest in analytically observing his opponents – will be anticipated. Some analysts, this sort of as Lisa Collins of the Middle for Strategic and Intercontinental Studies, say adversaries such as North Korea may perhaps presently be undertaking this by preparing to negotiate instantly with the world’s most influential country. Has Trump unwittingly granted North Korea’s extended-held would like to hold immediate talks with the United States and performed his most valuable bargaining chip much too early? Thinking of the fallout of the March stick to up meeting in Hanoi and North Korea’s the latest start of two brief-selection ballistic missiles into the Sea of Japan, some would say certainly.

Regional Collaboration 

Yet another symmetrical problem for the United States will be participating with the new economies of the location. Trump prefers bilateral negotiations wherever tariffs can be negotiated nation by state however, Asia is ever more becoming a location described by community alliances and networks. Even though equally the United States and China engage with ASEAN, it is China that has properly founded the region’s Asian Infrastructure Expense Lender.

In point, this is a curious facet of the relationship where by Trump and Xi’s shared resolve to make their possess mark, furthermore reinstate their nation’s legacy, may consequence in an massive transform in the standing quo. Xi’s vision of China entails regional leadership whilst Trump’s eyesight of America is to pull again from worldwide commitments. A number of the latest developments have roundly excluded the United States – most notably China’s cooperative regional safety architecture identified as the “Asian Safety Concept,” the TPP-11 trade pact (solid immediately after Trump withdrew from the authentic offer) and Beijing’s Belt and Highway Initiative (BRI) advancement technique.

Japan’s Position

A routinely missed part of regional rigidity is the transforming part of Japan in ability politics, notably as it struggles with the national and regional shifts relevant to its romantic relationship with the United States. Trump’s national vision of an The united states invested in the security of domestic manufacturing, as well as his regional vision of withdrawing from trade alliances these kinds of as the TPP, current massive difficulties.

The conundrum of Japan’s nationwide id and defense preparing proceeds to increase alarms equally within just and with out the region. In November 2017, extra than 40,000 persons attended national rallies to protest Primary Minister Shinzo Abe’s designs to revise Write-up 9 of the structure, regarded as the “pacifist article” for its renunciation of war. In May possibly, national and international media noted on the significantly vocal opposition of some Japanese citizens to the imperial loved ones, especially pursuing the modern succession ceremony in Tokyo.

Though America’s recent connection (and military existence) with Japan is positioned in international relations as a vital component of regional security, it began as an occupying drive. That truth is certainly not shed on Japan’s neighbors, 31 of which had been both bombed or occupied by the Japanese during Planet War II. It can be complicated for nations obsessed with Eurocentric historical past (commemorated annually with Oscar movie nominations) to respect Asia’s experience of WWII below the Japanese. The overall civilian reduction of lifetime, in China by yourself, is at the very least that professional by the previous Soviet Union. Some historians estimate it at double this figure.

These legacies of modern record, together with Trump’s incapacity to take pleasure in their effects on existing regional geopolitics and China’s response to changes in regional stability, present a person of the biggest spots of divergence. They may perhaps also be the crucial to Xi’s biggest opportunity for genuine regional collaboration and present the most intriguing conversation concerning two adult men whose particular qualities will outline bilateral relations for a long time to appear.

Katie Howe is a strategic expert primarily based in Canberra, Australia. Her 20-yr know-how features community affairs, governing administration relations, crisis communications, company communications and possibility administration help.

The post How Trump and Xi Will Shape US-China Relations appeared first on Defence Online.

from WordPress https://defenceonline.com/2019/05/13/how-trump-and-xi-will-shape-us-china-relations/

[marymosley]

A Response to “Is there Any Need to Resort to a § 101 Exception for Prior Art Ideas?” by Prof. Joshua Sarnoff

Guest post by Professor Joshua D. Sarnoff of DePaul College of Law.  Below, he responds to Jeremy C. Doerre, Is There Any Need to Resort to a § 101 Exception for Prior Art Ideas?, 2019 PatentlyO L.J. 10. (2019.Doerre.AnyNeed)

In Is There Any Need to Resort to a § 101 Exception for Prior Art Ideas, Mr. Doerre states that “[n]otably, however, there is no similar need to resort to use of an implicit exception to prevent undue preemption of known prior art abstract ideas, as 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103 already ensure that claims do not disproportionately ‘“t[ie] up the use of [] underlying” [prior art] ideas.’ This can be seen in that, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a claim must be inventive over all known prior art ideas, and cannot simply be an obvious application of a prior art abstract idea, or an obvious combination of several prior art abstract ideas.”  Of course, since Section 103 often requires detailed factual evaluations not readily resolved early in litigation, the pressure to use Section 101 remains even for ineligible subject matter that is in fact prior art against the applicant.  And unlike for Section 103, the nature of the creative advance over that discovery may be readily apparent on the face of the patent’s disclosure (particularly where it lies in the discovery itself and thus there is no meaningful additional creativity to render the practical application non-obvious).  But courts are unlikely to grant motions to dismiss under Section 103, and for some bizarre reason we keep giving this ultimate question of law to juries.  Further, Section 103’s obviousness standard in fact is not much clearer than Section 101 standards.

But the important point is that Section 101 is needed for precisely the case Mr. Doerre avoids, when the ineligible discovery is not prior art against the applicant. Mr. Doerre would be absolutely correct that we do not need to use Section 101 if Section 103 could do the job (of excluding uncreative applications of ineligible discoveries in the three categories of excluded subject matter – which are judicial interpretations of the meaning of “invention or discovery” and are not “judicial exceptions” to Section 101 subject matter).  But Section 103 cannot do that job as current written, even though both provisions derived from the same statutory section under the pre-1952 Act.  And that is because such ineligible discoveries are not normally among the categories of Section 102 prior art as applied to an applicant who is also the discoverer of that ineligible subject matter.

As I have written before (see https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1757272 and the briefs for amici law professors that I filed in Bilski, Mayo, and Myriad), the ineligible subject matter is often discovered by the applicant himself or herself, and thus does not qualify as Section 102 prior art for Section 103 obviousness analysis.  If it did, then 103 in fact would be able to do the job, although given the tremendous uncertainty over what qualifies as a non-obvious advance under Section 103 we would still have roughly the same amount of uncertainty in the law.  Further, no person who objects to using Section 101 to exclude categorically ineligible discoveries claimed as practical applications thereof would be the happier if we were to amend Section 102 to permit Section 103 to do the job now being performed (and only capable of being performed) by Section 101.  This is because then we would just use obviousness law to have to make the difficult decisions as to whether the claim as a whole represents a non-obvious advance over the ineligible discovery while treating the discovery as prior art against the applicant.  And as just noted, we don’t have a clear theory of how much creativity constitutes a non-obvious advance.  Although the amicus brief I filed for law and economics professors in KSR sought to have the Court explicitly adopt a time and money threshold of ordinary creativity so as to create that clear theory, predictably the Supreme Court declined the invitation to make the law clearer (while still correcting the errors of analysis of the Federal Circuit in assessing what constitutes an “obvious” advance over the prior art of record).

Further, as Professor Katherine Strandburg has persuasively explained (see https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2196844) and as the recent and less recent history clearly reflects, the current concern (since Benson) with preemption is not in fact either the source of the current eligibility doctrine nor the grounds for finding any practical applications to be ineligible.  As I explained in both the cited paper and briefs noted above, non-preemption is a consequence of having an inventive application of ineligible subject matter; lack of preemption says nothing about whether the application is in fact inventive in light of the discovery of such ineligible subject matter.  Consequently, were preemption of the entire set of applications of ineligible discoveries actually the concern driving application of the doctrine, none of the claims held invalid by the Supreme Court or the Federal Circuit should have been held invalid, as all those claimed specific applications did not preempt many other things that might have been claimed when employing the ineligible discoveries. (Of course, some of those held-to-be invalid claims may have covered all of the valuable, then-known applications.  But the Supreme Court had held in the Telephone Cases that claiming all valuable applications was perfectly fine, so long as the claims reflected the actual “invention” – meaning, at the time, a creative advance over ineligible subject matter).  Parker v. Flook’s terminology made this quite clear, requiring “some other inventive concept in its application” than mere (i.e., uncreative) application of the categorically ineligible discovery.  Flook’s language (and approach) was explicitly reaffirmed by Mayo’s recitation of a requirement for an “inventive concept” (notwithstanding the failure of the Supreme Court to explicitly acknowledged that Diamond v. Diehr had impliedly overruled Flook on this point, and that Mayo has now impliedly overruled Diehr on this point by reinstating Flook.  That Mayo also improvidently reiterated Benson’s preemption rationale without applying it in any way in the analysis is simply another example of uncareful opinions of the Supreme Court that engender further confusion rather than clarifying the law.  As Professor Strandburg has suggested, we would do well to simply ignore the “preemption” language and focus on the real question, which Professor Jeffrey Lefstin has correctly described (see https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2398696) of whether we want a standard of inventive application or only of practical application.  (Although I disagree with Professor Lefstin in regard to whether Funk Brothers was in fact the first instance of inventive application, we agree that the 1952 Act did not clearly overrule Funk Brothers.  This is important so that people will not continue to argue that Giles Rich was correct in his later revisionist history (see https://books.google.com/books/about/Laying_the_Ghost_of_the_invention_Requir.html?id=xH1etwAACAAJ) that  all questions of inventive creativity were placed in Section 103 by the 1952 Act, notwithstanding that P.J. Federico, who was the other principal co-author of the 1952 Act, argued the opposite – successfully – in the Application of Ducci case, 225 F.2d 683 (C.C.P.A. 1955) that Section 101’s “process” category (incorporating Section 100(b)’s definition of “process”) continued the “analogous use” test of inventive creativity requirement for claimed processes that the Supreme Court had articulated in Ansonia Brass & Copper Co. v. Electrical Supply Co., 144 U.S. 11 (1892)).

In summary, Mr. Doerre is simply wrong that Section 103 can do the job as currently written.  But if it could, he would be no happier with the state of the law, so long as inventive application remained the law for what constitutes an eligible (or a patentable) “invention,” and all without regard to “preemption.”  Should legislation move forward to eliminate the requirement for inventive application, we will have to learn if it in fact is a requirement of constitutional stature in granting authority to “inventors for their discoveries” (or is simply like the dicta in Graham v. John Deere, 386 U.S. 1, 6 (1966), that Congress may not remove inventions that have entered the public domain by granting patents on them – which the Supreme Court subsequently rejected in the copyright context as a constitutional limitation on legislative power in Golan v. Holder, 565 U.S. 302, 323-24 (2012) (quoting Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 202 n.7 (2003)).  But first, Congress would have to enact such legislation, and there are good reasons not to eliminate the inventive application requirement wholly without regard to the politics of which industries’ oxen will be gored thereby.  And let’s hope that if Congress does go there, that Congress is careful not to thereby permit aesthetic creativity to provide the “practical application” that thereby authorizes the grant of a utility patent as novel and nonobvious subject matter (whenever the aesthetic contribution to the claimed invention functionally interacts with the substrate that forms the remainder of the “claim as a whole,” so that the printed matter doctrine will not apply and thus the aesthetic creativity will thereby prevent a finding of non-obviousness, so we will end up with a design patent on steroids issued as a utility patent).

Disclosure statement: I have no current financial interest in the issues addressed.

A Response to “Is there Any Need to Resort to a § 101 Exception for Prior Art Ideas?” by Prof. Joshua Sarnoff published first on https://immigrationlawyerto.tumblr.com/

[republicstandard]

Church of England’s Synod may abolish Holy Trinity to include Muslims

In an highly controversial proposal, the Church of England’s General Synod is set to debate the abolition of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity as the first step towards being "intentionally inclusive" of Muslims and moving towards healing and reconciling the centuries old divide between Islam and Christianity.

The Church of England’s highest legislative body is due to meet at the University of York from July 7 to 10, 2018. Papers circulated to members of General Synod ahead of its sessions in York have been published online in two batches.

(function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:10817585113717094,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7788-6480"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.lockerdomecdn.com/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

One briefing paper in the first circulation sets out how an existing Church of England service for reaffirming baptismal vows may form the liturgical basis for services which help transgender Christians mark their gender transition openly.

In the second batch, a private member’s motion (PMM) will move "That this Synod: (i) having accepted that Christianity is a monotheistic religion; (ii) noting the lack of mention of the nomenclature of ‘Trinity’ in the Bible; (iii) recognising that Christians are condemned to hell by the Qur’an if they believe in the Trinity; (iv) emphasising the need for reconciliation with 2.2 billion Muslims and the catastrophic consequences of disunity if this is not achieved; (v) to formally integrate Muslim festivals which have been rapturously received by a number of cathedrals and parish churches across the country; (vi) this motion requests the House of Bishops to review the mathematically inaccurate doctrine of the Trinity and consider whether it needs to be amended or abolished so as to ensure an equal place at all levels in the Church for Muslims, including ordination to the priesthood and episcopate, and to report to Synod by February 2020."

Islam finds the idea of a Trinity utterly blasphemous to the idea of one God

The PMM has been proposed by the Rt Rev’d Josie-Josiah Jimplecute, Bishop of Breadford, a diocese that has seen the highest number of Muslim immigrants to the UK. Bishop Josie-Josiah, the CofE’s first openly transgender bishop, has been pioneering Alpha for Allah, a course for Christians wanting to become Muslims.

"Alpha for Allah shows how the Qur’an supersedes the Bible, since the Qur’an was written centuries later," explains Bishop Josie-Josiah, who has campaigned against the disturbance to Muslim sensibilities caused by church bell ringing. "Moreover, while higher criticism has destroyed the authority of the Bible by proving it was written by human authors, we can trust the authority of the Qur’an because we know it was dictated by the angel Gabriel to Muhammad," she added. She also notes the complete absence of German higher criticism, which has so undermined the authority of the gospels, but has left the integrity of Qur’anic inspiration untouched.

Commending the motion, Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, agreed he was strongly in favour. "Islam finds the idea of a Trinity utterly blasphemous to the idea of one God," he said in a BBC Radio 4 Thought for the Day. "It wasn’t dry academic theology and hair-splitting biblical exegesis, but all those delicious Iftar meals at Lambeth Palace and Southwark Cathedral that brought me closer to my Muslim siblings and resulted in a real change of heart. I’m a bit like Esau," he said.

I don’t want to go to hell. It’s as simple as that

"After Prince Charles and Tony Blair recommended reading the Qur’an, I put my Bible aside and started meditating on a Sura a day. When I got to Sura 4, I felt a holy fear of Allah coming over me. Let me quote from Sura 4 Ayah 171. I am using the Sahih International Version:

'The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, ‘Three’ – desist – it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son.'

"I couldn’t believe that I could have been wrong all these years. But I have been wrong on many other issues like gay relationships and transgenderism and this was one more area reminding me that I needed humility and good disagreement. I prayed that Allah would send me a confirmation, because I was not prepared to change my theology based on a single verse. The next day, when I was reading Sura 5 ayah 72-73, the scales fell from my eyes and I put aside the sermon I was preparing for Trinity Sunday. This is what the verse said:

'Lo! Whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden Paradise. His abode is the Fire…. They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is no God save the One God. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve.' I don’t want to go to hell. It’s as simple as that," Welby magisterially concluded on Radio 4.

Debates about the Trinity were common in the early church. We musn’t despair, because the Church of England at least hasn’t yet given up on Allah.

Anglicans for Chrislam, a branch of Inclusive Church, have issued a statement arguing that "Christians look like fools when they claim that 1 + 1 + 1 = 1. Anglicanism is based on the three-legged stool of scripture, tradition and reason. So far, our maths has proved to be totally unreasonable. There are limits to which faith can push reason. We know now that gender is fluid and hence it is scientifically reasonable to claim that a human with male genitalia can identify as a woman or vice versa. This is why we are creating a liturgy for transgender initiation. But numbers are not fluid. It was Arab Muslims who played an vital role in the transmission of mathematics to Europe from the 10th to 12th centuries and it is possible they are playing the most vital role today in getting us to correct our flawed understanding of God."

Conservative evangelicals have begun lobbying in Synod to persuade members to vote against the motion. The Rev’d Janus Pliable, Rector of St Simplicio’s Church, Bishopsbottom, London, has said that his church will consider leaving the Church of England unless his bishop the Rt Rev’d Pandora Doolally declares where she stands on the issue.

"For a very long time we have been talking about leaving the Church of England," he told reporters. "It’s a bit like Brexit. We are following the politics of good sense laid down by Prime Minister Theresa May. Everytime there is an issue of orthodoxy, we threaten to leave but we remain. We are remainers, not leavers. Debates about the Trinity were common in the early church. We musn’t despair, because the Church of England at least hasn’t yet given up on Allah. When that happens it will be a red line and we will leave. Until then, we will hang in there and hold on to our stipends, four-bedroom vicarages and church buildings even if we turn some of our church spires into minarets. The Church of England is still the best boat to fish from even if it is the Titanic," Rev’d Pliable said.

(function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:10817587730962790,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-5979-7226"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.lockerdomecdn.com/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

The motion has so far attracted 133 signatures and is expected to pass since the Muslim Council of Britain, Al Azhar University and King Salman of Saudi Arabia have been holding "mutual flourishing" sessions with members of General Synod.

from Republic Standard | Conservative Thought & Culture Magazine https://ift.tt/2N0Elpc via IFTTT

[nothingman]

It was an extraordinary critique of a sitting president’s behavior and character.

James Comey’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee Thursday was an extraordinary public critique of President Donald Trump’s conduct in office and character as a whole.

“I knew there might come a day when I would need a record of what had happened, not just to defend myself, but to defend the FBI and our integrity as an institution and the independence of our investigative function,” Comey said.

Speaking at length and in great detail, Comey laid out four main examples of behavior by the president he found either inappropriate or troubling.

First, Trump repeatedly asked for Comey’s “loyalty” at a private dinner in January, in what Comey interpreted as an effort to “get something in exchange” for keeping him in the FBI director post.

Second, on February 14, after Trump asked a set of other White House advisers to leave the room, he told Comey that he hoped he could “let” the matter of fired National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, then the subject of an FBI investigation into whether he’d made false statements about his contacts with the Russian ambassador, “go.” Comey says he “took it as a direction” from the president, not a request, but that he decided not to carry it out.

Third, Comey said that in a pair of phone calls, Trump asked him to publicly state what he was saying privately — that Trump wasn’t personally under investigation — as a way to lift what he called a “cloud” over his presidency. Again, Comey says he refused.

And fourth, Comey argued that Trump and his White House initially told “lies” about why he was fired and attempted to “defame” him. He also said he believed his firing was related to his handling of the Russia investigation, citing the president’s own words.

Now, Comey did not draw any conclusions about whether the president was attempting to obstruct justice, saying that that would be up to special counsel Robert Mueller to determine. And it is important to note that, per Comey, Trump never actually asked him to shut down the Russia investigation.

Furthermore, Comey straightforwardly confirmed that while he was in office, President Trump was not personally the subject of an FBI investigation. Comey also confirmed that he privately assured the president of this several times, which makes Trump’s desire to have Comey make the same statement publicly more understandable.

In a statement released afterward, Trump’s personal lawyer Marc Kasowitz denied that he ever asked Comey for loyalty or suggested that he stop investigating Flynn, essentially accusing the former FBI director of lying under oath, writing, “The president never, in form or substance, directed or suggested that Mr. Comey stop investigating anyone.”

But the revelations didn’t stop with Trump. Comey tantalizingly suggested that there is more nonpublic information about Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Russia that was bound to force his recusal from the probe. And he confirmed reports that President Obama’s Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s conduct around the Hillary Clinton email investigation seriously troubled him.

The big picture, though, is about the president. Comey has laid out a troubling pattern of the president’s refusal to respect or understand the traditional independence of the FBI director — a pattern that culminated in his own firing under a transparently bogus pretext.

The Flynn request: “I took it as a direction ... this is the president of the United States”

Before Comey’s firing, the incident that raises the most serious questions about whether the president was trying to obstruct justice occurred on February 14, 2017.

According to Comey, on this morning, Trump asked all other administration officials to leave the room after an Oval Office briefing so he could speak to the FBI director alone. The president then brought up Michael Flynn, who was fired as national security adviser the night before. Comey’s prepared testimony states:

The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, “He is a good guy and has been through a lot.” He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President.

He then said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” I replied only that “he is a good guy.”

At the hearing, Comey was questioned extensively on how he interpreted this exchange. Some Republican senators, including Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID), focused on the president’s words “I hope,” suggesting that he was merely vaguely expressing his wishes rather than making a direct instruction.

Comey didn’t buy it. “I took it as a direction,” he testified. “This is a president of the United States with me alone saying “I hope” this. I took it as, this is what he wants me to do. I didn’t obey that, but that’s the way I took it.”

He later elaborated: “It rings in my ear as, well, ‘Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?’” — making a reference to the tale of how King Henry II “suggested” to his advisers that someone kill Thomas Becket, which someone soon did.

The specific ask Comey thought Trump was making was for him to drop the FBI probe into Flynn for making false statements about his contacts with the Russian ambassador (including whether he made false statements to government investigators). He says he didn’t think Trump was referring to investigations into Flynn’s foreign lobbying, or the larger Russia probe. He continued:

I don’t think it's for me to say whether the conversation I had with the president was an effort to obstruct. I took it as a very disturbing thing, very concerning, but that's a conclusion I'm sure the special counsel will work towards to find out the intention there and whether that's an offense.

Now, Trump’s personal lawyer Marc Kasowitz released a statement Thursday afternoon claiming that “the President never, in form or substance, directed or suggested that Mr,. Comey stop investigating anyone, including suggesting that Mr. Comey ‘let Flynn go.’” (Kasowitz does, however, confirm that the interaction happened, writing that Trump told Comey Flynn is a “good guy” who has “been through a lot.”)

But Comey was testifying under oath, and he says he documented the incident at the time in a memo and shared it with other FBI leaders. It does not seem particularly likely that he is lying — especially since President Trump has already brought up the possibility that tapes of their encounter exist, lying under oath would put him in serious legal jeopardy. (“Lordy,” Comey said, “I hope there are tapes.”)

A troubling pattern beyond the Flynn request

On its own, Trump’s alleged request about “letting Flynn go” — a seeming attempt to protect a former close aide from criminal charges by having the FBI drop an investigation — demonstrates a troubling lack of respect for the rule of law.

But Comey laid out a larger pattern in which the president made clear that he either does not care about or does not understand the traditional independence of law enforcement agencies like the FBI from the president.

Comey made clear that he was wary of Trump from the get-go and had a low opinion of his honesty and character. He testified that he felt compelled to meticulously document all his interactions with Trump because of his opinion of the president’s “nature,” saying that he was “honestly concerned that he might lie about” what went on in their meetings.

January 27 was the unusual dinner in which Trump repeatedly asked for Comey’s “loyalty.” In the context Comey provides, this looks even worse, because he says that Trump had already told him three times that he hoped he’d stay on as FBI director and Comey had confirmed he would. So he concluded that Trump wanted something from him.

The next Friday, I have dinner and the president begins by wanting to talk about my job. And so I'm sitting there thinking, wait a minute, three times we've already — you've already asked me to stay or talked about me staying.

My common sense, again I could be wrong, but my common sense told me what's going on here is, he's looking to get something in exchange for granting my request to stay in the job.

(Trump’s lawyer Marc Kasowitz denies Trump asked for Comey’s loyalty, saying, "The President also never told Mr. Comey, 'I need loyalty, I expect loyalty,' in form or substance.")

Then there were Trump’s complaints to Comey about the FBI’s Russia investigation in two phone calls, on March 30 and April 11 — he called it a “cloud” hanging over his presidency, per Comey.

This could be interpreted as an attempt to vaguely pressure the FBI director, but Comey testified that Trump never asked him to shut down the Russia investigation as a whole and in fact said that if his “satellite” advisers did anything wrong, it would be good to find that out.

Trump’s specific ask in these calls, according to Comey, was that the FBI director publicly state that he wasn’t personally under investigation. Comey may have had his reasons for refusing to do this, but considering he confirms that he freely told the president in private, several times, this request seems understandable from Trump’s point of view. (He wanted Comey to put out true information.)

Still, all of these tensions, unfulfilled requests, and awkward interactions lead in the end to Comey’s firing under transparently false pretexts (the reasons given were that he was too tough on Hillary Clinton in the email case, and that the FBI was a mess with poor morale under his leadership). Comey minced no words here, calling these “lies” and saying the administration tried to “defame” him:

Although the law requires no reason at all to fire an FBI director, it confused me when I saw on television the president saying that he actually fired me because of the Russian investigation, and learned again from the media that he was telling privately other parties that my firing had relieved great pressure on the Russian investigation.

I was also confused by the initial explanation that was offered publicly that I was fired because of the decision I had made during the election year. That didn't make sense to me for whole bunch of reasons, including the time and all the water that had gone under the bridge since those hard decision that had to be made. That didn't make any sense to me.

And although the law requires no reason at all to fire an FBI director, the administration then chose to defame me and more importantly the FBI by saying that the organization was in disarray, that it was poorly led, that the work force had lost confidence in its leader. Those were lies, plain and simple.

The hearings also revealed newsworthy information about Loretta Lynch and Jeff Sessions

In addition to raising these troubling questions about President Trump’s conduct, Comey made news on two other matters — one involving his boss in the Obama administration, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, while the other involved his boss under Trump, Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

First, in defending his extraordinary public presentation about the Hillary Clinton email case in July 2016 — in which he criticized Clinton’s conduct but announced he wouldn’t charge her — Comey confirmed that he was troubled by Lynch’s behavior around the case.

What made up his mind, Comey said, was the infamous impromptu tarmac meeting between Bill Clinton and Lynch. But even before that, he continued, Lynch made a request of him that sounded odd:

The Clinton campaign at the time was using all kinds of euphemisms, “security review,” “matters,” things like that for what was going on. We were getting to a place where the attorney general [Lynch] and I were both going to testify and talk publicly about it

I wanted to know, was she going to authorize us to confirm we have an investigation? She said yes, but don't call it that, call it a “matter.”

I said why would I do that? She said, just call it a matter. ... That concerned me because that language tracked the way the campaign was talking about the FBI's work and that's concerning.

And elsewhere in the hearing, Comey made a statement about Jeff Sessions that raised eyebrows in Washington. In explaining why he didn’t brief Sessions on Trump’s request that he drop the Flynn investigation, Comey said:

Our judgment, as I recall, is that he was very close to and inevitably going to recuse himself for a variety of reasons. We also were aware of facts that I can't discuss in an opening setting that would make his continued engagement in a Russia-related investigation problematic.

So, Comey appears to be indicating that there’s more to the story of Jeff Sessions and Russia beyond the two encounters with Ambassador Sergey Kislyak (a meeting in his Senate office, and an exchange at a public event) that Sessions failed to disclose at his confirmation hearing, and that led to his recusal in the first place.

Overall, though, Comey’s account of Trump’s conduct was rightly treated as the major story coming out of this meeting. He has given his side of the story, and now, the ball is in special counsel Robert Mueller’s court.

via Vox - All

[bedisciple-blog]

Prosperity Gospel

New Post has been published on http://bedisciple.com/begospel-clear/false-gospels/prosperity-gospel/

Prosperity Gospel

The “Prosperity Gospel” or “Word of Faith” is a movement that has grown out of the Charismatic movement.  Proponents of this teaching are well known “pastors” (I use this term very loosely) such as Joyce Meyers, T.D. Jakes, Joel Osteen, Kenneth Copeland, Steven Furtick, Hillsong, and Bill Johnson of Bethel Redding (Jesus Culture).  Please note that this list is not all inclusive.

The prosperity gospel teaches that God always wants you to be healthy, wealthy, happy and that your words have power, also know as “positive confession”.  While this may sound great, it couldn’t be further from what scripture teaches.

There are five major theological errors that the prosperity gospel teaches.  I’ll try to keep these brief, but I can’t make any promises 😉

The Abrahamic covenant applies to New Testament believers and is meant as a means to material gain and entitlement.  

The prosperity gospel teaches: The prosperity gospel teaches that the primary purpose of the Abrahamic covenant was for God to bless Abraham materially. Since believers are now Abraham’s spiritual children, we have inherited these financial blessings. As Kenneth Copeland wrote in his 1974 book The Laws of Prosperity,

“Since God’s covenant has been established and prosperity is a provision of this covenant, you need to realize that prosperity belongs to you now!”

The Bible teaches: The primary “proof text” that the prosperity teachers use is Galatians 3:14, which refers to “the blessings of Abraham [that] come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus.”  If we read this verse in context, really just the second part of the same verse, we see that the Apostle Paul is reminding the Galatians of the spiritual blessing of salvation, not any material blessing or promise of wealth.

(Galatians 3:14) “in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.” (emphasis added)

Jesus’s work on the cross extends to the “sin of material poverty.

The prosperity gospel teaches: Kenneth Copeland has said that “the basic principle of the Christian life is to know that God put our sin, sickness, disease, sorrow, grief, and poverty on Jesus at Calvary.”  This belief stems from a theological error that claims that physical healing and financial prosperity were provided for in the atoning work of Jesus on the cross.

The Bible teaches: Christ was not interested in people finding, or even looking for material gain.  He came to “seek and save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10).

Here are the two major errors that prosperity teachers make:

“First, many who espouse prosperity theology have a fundamental misconception of the life of Jesus. For example, teacher John Avanzini proclaimed on a TBN program, Jesus had “a nice house,” “a big house,” “Jesus was handling big money,” and he even “wore designer clothes.” It’s easy to see how such a warped view of the life of Christ could lead to an equally warped misconception of the death of Christ.” -David W. Jones

Jones goes on to say, “A second error that leads to a faulty view of the atonement is a misinterpretation of 2 Corinthians 8:9, which reads, “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that you through his poverty might become rich.” While a shallow reading of this verse may lead one to believe Paul was teaching about an increase in material wealth, a contextual reading reveals Paul was actually teaching the exact opposite principle. Indeed, Paul was teaching the Corinthians that since Christ accomplished so much for them through the atonement, they should empty themselves of their riches in service of the Savior. This is why just five short verses later Paul would urge the Corinthians to give their wealth away to their needy brothers, writing “that now at this time your abundance may supply their lack” (2 Cor. 8:14).”

Christians must give in order to gain a material “kickback” from God.

The prosperity gospel teaches: Prosperity teacher Robert Tilton referred to this idea as the “Law of Compensation.”  This “law” is supposedly based on Mark 10:30 and says that Christians need to give generously to others because when they do, God will give them more in return.  This is supposed to lead to a cycle of ever-increasing prosperity.

Kenneth Copeland said in his book The Laws of Prosperity, “True prosperity is the ability to use God’s power to meet the needs of mankind in any realm of life.”  Ken’s wife Gloria said in her book God’s will is Prosperity, “We have been called to finance the gospel to the world.”  Gloria defines her idea of what this means in her book God’s Will p. 54 when she says this, “Give $10 and receive $1,000; give $1,000 and receive $100,000…in short, Mark 10:30 is a very good deal.”  Yikes!

With this in view, it’s not hard to see their real motivations.  Especially since Mr. Copeland owns his own jet.

The Bible teaches: Jesus taught in the parable of The Good Samaritan to give seeking nothing in return (Luke 10:30-37).  And to the rich young ruler in Mark 10:21 Jesus taught that our affections must be on Him, not material possessions.

Faith is a self-generated spiritual force that leads to prosperity.

The prosperity gospel teaches: 

“According to prosperity theology, faith is not a God-granted, God-centered act of the will. Rather it is a humanly wrought spiritual force, directed at God. Indeed, any theology that views faith solely as a means to material gain rather than justification before God must be judged faulty and inadequate.” -David W. Jones

In his book, The Laws of Prosperity p.19 Kenneth Copeland writes,  “Faith is a spiritual force, a spiritual energy, a spiritual power. It is this force of faith which makes the laws of the spirit world function. . . . There are certain laws governing prosperity revealed in God’s Word. Faith causes them to function.”

The Bible teaches: Faith is trust in the person and work of Jesus Christ.  Ephesians 2:8-9 teaches that grace and faith are a gift from God and the purpose is to save the lost from their sin.  Faith is not exercised by men for material gain.

“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.” (emphasis added)

Prayer is a tool to force God to grant prosperity.

The prosperity gospel teaches: 

Prosperity gospel preachers often note that we “have not because we ask not” (Jas. 4:2). Advocates of the prosperity gospel encourage believers to pray for personal success in all areas of life. Creflo Dollar writes, “When we pray, believing that we have already received what we are praying, God has no choice but to make our prayers come to pass. . . . It is a key to getting results as a Christian.” Creflo Dollar, “Prayer: Your Path to Success,” March 2, 2009, http://www.creflodollarministries.org/BibleStudy/Articles.aspx?id=329 (accessed on October 30, 2013).

While prayers for blessing are not necessarily wrong, the prosperity gospel has overemphasized man and has made prayer into a cudgel used to beat God into submission to man’s desires.

The Bible teaches: If we were to read the next verse of James, we would quickly see that God does not answer selfish requests that are man-centered and do not honor His name.

“You ask and to not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures.” (James 4:3) (emphasis added)

A FALSE GOSPEL

In light of Scripture, the prosperity gospel is fundamentally flawed. At bottom, the prosperity gospel is actually a false gospel because of its faulty view of the relationship between God and man. Simply put, if the prosperity gospel is true, grace is obsolete, God is irrelevant, and man is the measure of all things. Whether they are talking about the Abrahamic covenant, the atonement, giving, faith, or prayer, prosperity teachers turn the relationship between God and man into a quid pro quo transaction. As James R. Goff noted, God is “reduced to a kind of ‘cosmic bellhop’ attending to the needs and desires of his creation.” (The Faith That Claims James R. Goff Jr.)  This is a wholly inadequate and unbiblical view of the relationship between God and man.  -David W. Jones