Standing Tall and Strong Through Prayer
Scripture: Nehemiah 1:1-11
I. Introduction: Prayer is powerful. It allows us to cast our burdens on the Lord and receive guidance and provision from Him. We can experience God’s power for daily living when we’re willing to seek Him earnestly and bow in reverence. Remember, we stand tallest and strongest on our knees (Life Principle #17). If you and I approach prayer correctly, we can have confidence that He will respond to our requests.
II. Nehemiah knew how to stand tall and strong on his knees.
A. When he heard that Jerusalem’s walls and gates were in ruins, Nehemiah turned to God in prayer (Neh. 1:4). As a result, the Lord granted him favor with King Artaxerxes. The ruler not only let Nehemiah take a leave of absence; he also supplied the exiles with building materials and military protection (2:5-9).
B. Time and again, Nehemiah sought the Lord whenever he faced a problem. He turned to God for strength to keep going despite criticism and discouragement (4:1-5). The Lord gave him wisdom to know how to handle critics (6:1-3) and to defend the city against military attack (4:18). To their enemies’ surprise, the Jews rebuilt the wall in 52 days. More importantly, spiritual revival came to Jerusalem as a result of Nehemiah’s faithfulness.
III. How should we pray?
A. Recognize that God is the Sovereign of the Universe. Nehemiah addressed his prayer to “the great and awesome God” (1:5). Psalm 103:19 says, “The Lord has established His throne in the heavens, and His sovereignty rules over all.” Our heavenly Father never ceases to be the ruler and master of the universe.
B. Recognize that God is holy. When Isaiah saw the Lord in His glory, he felt unclean, even though he had lived a faithful, righteous life (Isa. 6:1-6). The picture we see of God in the book of Revelation is similar in its majesty. As humans, we all fall short of His absolute holiness. We should approach Him with reverence and awe. The same attitude prompted Nehemiah to fast and pray for four months. He looked to God, not himself, for the answer to Jerusalem’s problems.
C. Confess sin. Nehemiah included himself when he admitted the rebellion of his nation (Neh. 1:6-7). Scripture teaches that the Lord won’t hear our prayers if we’re holding onto unconfessed sin (Ps. 66:18). Purity of heart and the power of God are connected.
D. Recognize your inadequacy. Nehemiah’s job had not prepared him in construction, and he was unknown to the Jews who had remained in Jerusalem. Yet God still called him to lead the restoration. When the Lord tells you to do something, He hasn’t made a mistake. He will never call you to do something that you can’t accomplish through His power and strength. In fact, God delights in using your weaknesses to teach you how to rely on Him.
E. Be available for God to use you. Some prayers will never be answered unless we take an active role in their fulfillment.
F. Experience the Holy Spirit’s enabling power. Nehemiah’s success was not simply a result of his education, personality, or political connections. He had developed a personal relationship with the Father (Neh. 2:4). God wants you to look at yourself as He does—as someone with potential. In the power of the Spirit, you have the ability to do whatever He asks.
G. Acquire God’s vision and direction. As Nehemiah sought the Lord in prayer, God revealed his role in the city’s restoration. What’s on your heart? Surrender every dream or goal to the heavenly Father, and watch what He will do in and through you.
VI. Conclusion: As a child of God, you have the awesome privilege of falling on your knees and talking to the Ruler of the universe. Don’t take this precious gift for granted. Humbly approach the throne of grace with your needs, confess your wrongdoing, and admit that life’s challenges are too much for you to handle. The Father will reveal His plans and equip you to succeed.
2) The 30-Day Reading List That Will Lead You to Becoming a Knowledgeable Libertarian by Robert Wenzel
The Fallacy of the 'Public Sector'
This article is excerpted from Economic Controversies, chapter 21, "The Fallacy of the 'Public Sector'" (2011). It was originally in the New Individualist Review (Summer, 1961): 3–7.
We have heard a great deal in recent years of the "public sector," and solemn discussions abound through the land on whether or not the public sector should be increased vis-à-vis the "private sector." The very terminology is redolent of pure science, and indeed it emerges from the supposedly scientific, if rather grubby, world of "national-income statistics." But the concept is hardly wertfrei; in fact, it is fraught with grave, and questionable, implications.
In the first place, we may ask, "public sector" of what? Of something called the "national product." But note the hidden assumptions: that the national product is something like a pie, consisting of several "sectors," and that these sectors, public and private alike, are added to make the product of the economy as a whole. In this way, the assumption is smuggled into the analysis that the public and private sectors are equally productive, equally important, and on an equal footing altogether, and that "our" deciding on the proportions of public to private sector is about as innocuous as any individual's decision on whether to eat cake or ice cream. The State is considered to be an amiable service agency, somewhat akin to the corner grocer, or rather to the neighborhood lodge, in which "we" get together to decide how much "our government" should do for (or to) us. Even those neoclassical economists who tend to favor the free market and free society often regard the State as a generally inefficient, but still amiable, organ of social service, mechanically registering "our" values and decisions.
One would not think it difficult for scholars and laymen alike to grasp the fact that government is not like the Rotarians or the Elks; that it differs profoundly from all other organs and institutions in society; namely, that it lives and acquires its revenues by coercion and not by voluntary payment. The late Joseph Schumpeter was never more astute than when he wrote, "The theory which construes taxes on the analogy of club dues or of the purchase of the services of, say, a doctor only proves how far removed this part of the social sciences is from scientific habits of mind."
Apart from the public sector, what constitutes the productivity of the "private sector" of the economy? The productivity of the private sector does not stem from the fact that people are rushing around doing "something," anything, with their resources; it consists in the fact that they are using these resources to satisfy the needs and desires of the consumers. Businessmen and other producers direct their energies, on the free market, to producing those products that will be most rewarded by the consumers, and the sale of these products may therefore roughly "measure" the importance that the consumers place upon them. If millions of people bend their energies to producing horses-and-buggies, they will, in this day and age, not be able to sell them, and hence the productivity of their output will be virtually zero. On the other hand, if a few million dollars are spent in a given year on Product X, then statisticians may well judge that these millions constitute the productive output of the X-part of the "private sector" of the economy.
One of the most important features of our economic resources is their scarcity: land, labor, and capital-goods factors are all scarce, and may all be put to various possible uses. The free market uses them "productively" because the producers are guided, on the market, to produce what the consumers most need: automobiles, for example, rather than buggies. Therefore, while the statistics of the total output of the private sector seem to be a mere adding of numbers, or counting units of output, the measures of output actually involve the important qualitative decision of considering as "product" what the consumers are willing to buy. A million automobiles, sold on the market, are productive because the consumers so considered them; a million buggies, remaining unsold, would not have been "product" because the consumers would have passed them by.
Suppose now that into this idyll of free exchange enters the long arm of government. The government, for some reasons of its own, decides to ban automobiles altogether (perhaps because the many tailfins offend the aesthetic sensibilities of the rulers) and to compel the auto companies to produce the equivalent in buggies instead. Under such a strict regimen, the consumers would be, in a sense, compelled to purchase buggies because no cars would be permitted. However, in this case, the statistician would surely be purblind if he blithely and simply recorded the buggies as being just as "productive" as the previous automobiles. To call them equally productive would be a mockery; in fact, given plausible conditions, the "national product" totals might not even show a statistical decline, when they had actually fallen drastically.
And yet the highly touted "public sector" is in even worse straits than the buggies of our hypothetical example. For most of the resources consumed by the maw of government have not even been seen, much less used, by the consumers, who were at least allowed to ride in their buggies. In the private sector, a firm's productivity is gauged by how much the consumers voluntarily spend on its product. But in the public sector, the government's "productivity" is measured – mirabile dictu – by how much it spends! Early in their construction of national-product statistics, the statisticians were confronted with the fact that the government, unique among individuals and firms, could not have its activities gauged by the voluntary payments of the public – because there were little or none of such payments. Assuming, without any proof, that government must be as productive as anything else, they then settled upon its expenditures as a gauge of its productivity. In this way, not only are government expenditures just as useful as private, but all the government need to do in order to increase its "productivity" is to add a large chunk to its bureaucracy. Hire more bureaucrats, and see the productivity of the public sector rise! Here, indeed, is an easy and happy form of social magic for our bemused citizens.
The truth is exactly the reverse of the common assumptions. Far from adding cozily to the private sector, the public sector can only feed off the private sector; it necessarily lives parasitically upon the private economy. But this means that the productive resources of society – far from satisfying the wants of consumers – are now directed, by compulsion, away from these wants and needs. The consumers are deliberately thwarted, and the resources of the economy diverted from them to those activities desired by the parasitic bureaucracy and politicians. In many cases, the private consumers obtain nothing at all, except perhaps propaganda beamed to them at their own expense. In other cases, the consumers receive something far down on their list of priorities – like the buggies of our example. In either case, it becomes evident that the "public sector" is actually antiproductive: that it subtracts from, rather than adds to, the private sector of the economy. For the public sector lives by continuous attack on the very criterion that is used to gauge productivity: the voluntary purchases of consumers.
We may gauge the fiscal impact of government on the private sector by subtracting government expenditures from the national product. For government payments to its own bureaucracy are hardly additions to production; and government absorption of economic resources takes them out of the productive sphere. This gauge, of course, is only fiscal; it does not begin to measure the antiproductive impact of various government regulations, which cripple production and exchange in other ways than absorbing resources. It also does not dispose of numerous other fallacies of the national product statistics. But at least it removes such common myths as the idea that the productive output of the American economy increased during World War II. Subtract the government deficit instead of add it, and we see that the real productivity of the economy declined, as we would rationally expect during a war.
In another of his astute comments, Joseph Schumpeter wrote, concerning anticapitalist intellectuals, "capitalism stands its trial before judges who have the sentence of death in their pockets. They are going to pass it, whatever the defense they may hear; the only success a victorious defense can possibly produce is a change in the indictment." The indictment has certainly been changing. In the 1930s, we heard that government must expand because capitalism had brought about mass poverty. Now, under the aegis of John Kenneth Galbraith, we hear that capitalism has sinned because the masses are too affluent. Where once poverty was suffered by "one-third of a nation," we must now bewail the "starvation" of the public sector.
By what standards does Dr. Galbraith conclude that the private sector is too bloated and the public sector too anemic, and therefore that government must exercise further coercion to rectify its own malnutrition? Certainly, his standard is not historical. In 1902, for example, net national product of the United States was $22.1 billion; government expenditure (federal, state, and local) totaled $1.66 billion, or 7.1 percent of the total product. In 1957, on the other hand, net national product was $402.6 billion, and government expenditures totaled $125.5 billion, or 31.2 percent of the total product. Government's fiscal depredation on the private product has therefore multiplied from four to five-fold over the present century. This is hardly "starvation" of the public sector. And yet, Galbraith contends that the public sector is being increasingly starved, relative to its status in the nonaffluent 19th century!
What standards, then, does Galbraith offer us to discover when the public sector will finally be at its optimum? The answer is nothing but personal whim:
There will be question as to what is the test of balance – at what point may we conclude that balance has been achieved in the satisfaction of private and public needs. The answer is that no test can be applied, for none exists.... The present imbalance is clear.... This being so, the direction in which we move to correct matters is utterly plain.
To Galbraith, the imbalance of today is "clear." Clear why? Because he looks around him and sees deplorable conditions wherever government operates. Schools are overcrowded, urban traffic is congested and the streets littered, rivers are polluted; he might have added that crime is increasingly rampant and the courts of justice clogged. All of these are areas of government operation and ownership. The one supposed solution for these glaring defects is to siphon more money into the government till.
But how is it that only government agencies clamor for more money and denounce the citizens for reluctance to supply more? Why do we never have the private-enterprise equivalents of traffic jams (which occur on government streets), mismanaged schools, water shortages, and so on? The reason is that private firms acquire the money that they deserve from two sources: voluntary payment for the services by consumers, and voluntary investment by investors in expectation of consumer demand. If there is an increased demand for a privately owned good, consumers pay more for the product, and investors invest more in its supply, thus "clearing the market" to everyone's satisfaction. If there is an increased demand for a publicly owned good (water, streets, subway, and so on), all we hear is annoyance at the consumer for wasting precious resources, coupled with annoyance at the taxpayer for balking at a higher tax load. Private enterprise makes it its business to court the consumer and to satisfy his most urgent demands; government agencies denounce the consumer as a troublesome user of their resources. Only a government, for example, would look fondly upon the prohibition of private cars as a "solution" for the problem of congested streets. Government's numerous "free" services, moreover, create permanent excess demand over supply and therefore permanent "shortages" of the product. Government, in short, acquiring its revenue by coerced confiscation rather than by voluntary investment and consumption, is not and cannot be run like a business. Its inherent gross inefficiencies, the impossibility for it to clear the market, will insure its being a mare's nest of trouble on the economic scene.
In former times, the inherent mismanagement of government was generally considered a good argument for keeping as many things as possible out of government hands. After all, when one has invested in a losing proposition, one tries to refrain from pouring good money after bad. And yet, Dr. Galbraith would have us redouble our determination to pour the taxpayer's hard-earned money down the rathole of the "public sector," and uses the very defects of government operation as his major argument!
Professor Galbraith has two supporting arrows in his bow. First, he states that, as people's living standards rise, the added goods are not worth as much to them as the earlier ones. This is standard knowledge; but Galbraith somehow deduces from this decline that people's private wants are now worth nothing to them. But if that is the case, then why should government "services," which have expanded at a much faster rate, still be worth so much as to require a further shift of resources to the public sector? His final argument is that private wants are all artificially induced by business advertising, which automatically "creates" the wants that it supposedly serves. In short, people, according to Galbraith, would, if let alone, be content with nonaffluent, presumably subsistence-level living; advertising is the villain that spoils this primitive idyll.
Aside from the philosophical problem of how A can "create" B's wants and desires without B's having to place his own stamp of approval upon them, we are faced here with a curious view of the economy. Is everything above subsistence "artificial"? By what standard? Moreover, why in the world should a business go through the extra bother and expense of inducing a change in consumer wants, when it can profit by serving the consumer's existing, uncreated wants? The very "marketing revolution" that business is now undergoing, its increased and almost frantic concentration on "market research," demonstrates the reverse of Galbraith's view. For if, by advertising, business production automatically creates its own consumer demand, there would be no need whatever for market research – and no worry about bankruptcy either. In fact, far from the consumer in an affluent society being more of a "slave" to the business firm, the truth is precisely the opposite: for as living standards rise above subsistence, the consumer gets more particular and choosy about what he buys. The businessman must pay even greater court to the consumer than he did before: hence the furious attempts of market research to find out what the consumers want to buy.
There is an area of our society, however, where Galbraith's strictures on advertising may almost be said to apply – but it is in an area that he curiously never mentions. This is the enormous amount of advertising and propaganda by government. This is advertising that beams to the citizen the virtues of a product that, unlike business advertising, he never has a chance to test. If Cereal Company X prints a picture of a pretty girl declaiming that "Cereal X is yummy," the consumer, even if doltish enough to take this seriously, has a chance to test that proposition personally. Soon his own taste determines whether he will buy or not. But if a government agency advertises its own virtues over the mass media, the citizen has no direct test to permit him to accept or reject the claims. If any wants are artificial, they are those generated by government propaganda. Furthermore, business advertising is, at least, paid for by investors, and its success depends on the voluntary acceptance of the product by the consumers. Government advertising is paid for by means of taxes extracted from the citizens, and hence can go on, year after year, without check. The hapless citizen is cajoled into applauding the merits of the very people who, by coercion, are forcing him to pay for the propaganda. This is truly adding insult to injury.
If Professor Galbraith and his followers are poor guides for dealing with the public sector, what standard does our analysis offer instead? The answer is the old Jeffersonian one: "that government is best which governs least." Any reduction of the public sector, any shift of activities from the public to the private sphere, is a net moral and economic gain.
Most economists have two basic arguments on behalf of the public sector, which we may only consider very briefly here. One is the problem of "external benefits." A and B often benefit, it is held, if they can force C into doing something. Much can be said in criticism of this doctrine; but suffice it to say here that any argument proclaiming the right and goodness of, say, three neighbors, who yearn to form a string quartet, forcing a fourth neighbor at bayonet point to learn and play the viola, is hardly deserving of sober comment. The second argument is more substantial; stripped of technical jargon, it states that some essential services simply cannot be supplied by the private sphere, and that therefore government supply of these services is necessary. And yet, every single one of the services supplied by government has been, in the past, successfully furnished by private enterprise. The bland assertion that private citizens cannot possibly supply these goods is never bolstered, in the works of these economists, by any proof whatever. How is it, for example, that economists, so often given to pragmatic or utilitarian solutions, do not call for social "experiments" in this direction? Why must political experiments always be in the direction of more government? Why not give the free market a county or even a state or two, and see what it can accomplish?
 In the preceding sentences, Schumpeter wrote,
The friction of antagonism between the private and the public sphere was intensified from the first by the fact that ... the state has been living on a revenue which was being produced in the private sphere for private purposes and had to be deflected from these purposes by political force. (Joseph A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy [New York: Harper and Bros., 1942], p. 198)
 Ibid, p. 144.
 John Kenneth Galbraith, The Affluent Society (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1958), pp. 320–21.
 For more on the inherent problems of government operations, see Murray N. Rothbard, "Government in Business," in Essays on Liberty (Irvington-on-Hudson, N.Y: Foundation for Economic Education, 1958), vol. 4, pp. 183–87.
3) Roger’s Rangers Rules or Plan of Discipline by Major Robert Rogers
Before you leave your encampment, send out small parties to scout round it, to see if there be any appearance or track of an enemy that might have been near you during the night.
4) 52 Weeks to Preparedness by Tess Pennington
Week 25 of 52: Dental Preparedness (List 2)
In week 10, dental preparedness was introduced and preventative dental health was stressed. This week we are taking our dental issues to another level… a longer-term level. It is important to remember that your teeth and gums are living body parts that respond to vitamins, minerals and fatty acids just as your skin, hair, muscles and organs do. And we must do all that we can do to keep them healthy. When teeth do not get the proper amounts of vitamins and nutrition, their overall health diminishes. Did you know there are foods that are both nutritious as well as good for the teeth and gums? Having access to some of these foods during a short or long-term emergency can be beneficial to your health as well as to your teeth.
As previously discussed in week 10, preventative dental health is the best type of oral care you can give your teeth and gums. Schedule regular check ups with your dentist to keep your oral health up to par. After all, we don’t want to be dealing with any existing dental problems during a long-term emergency. Having supplies and knowledge on natural alternatives to turn to during longer term emergencies will help keep you thriving.
When we think about being in a long-term emergency, the thought of having dental issues on top of everything else is a nightmare in itself. Since our goal is to create an all-encompassing preparedness supply, knowing what the most likely scenarios are and planning for them is better than going into a situation blindly. In the case of dental emergencies, the most common types of dental emergencies to prepare for are:
- Swollen jaw
- Dental injuries
- Prolonged bleeding after an extraction
- Painful jaw
- Painful erupting tooth
- Cold Sores, Canker Sores, Fever Blisters
Most of these issues can be eradicated through preventative maintenance, so I’ll stress again: Keep your teeth healthy. When there is an emergency, however, dentist appointments are hard to come by. So, we will learn some alternative approaches to keep our teeth and gums in top shape. When the toothpaste and toothbrushes run out of your disaster supplies, look for these dental alternatives in your emergency supplies:
- Baking soda
- Essential oils
- Hydrogen Peroxide
These items are multi-purpose, inexpensive and can keep your teeth and gums very healthy during a long-term disaster. For more detailed information including recipes for dental pastes and rinses, click here. Also, if you plan to have any elderly family members staying with you during a short or long-term disaster, do not forget to anticipate their dental needs.
Having some dental supplies to rely on during short-or long-term emergencies would be opportunistic to say the least. Your emergency dental supplies should be all encompassing with regards to multiple dental emergency resources, first aid supplies, vitamins, pain relief, anti-inflammatory needs and antibiotics.
Preps To Buy:
- Salt (in quantity)
- Baking Soda (in quantity)
- Essential oils (in quantity) such as clove oil, cinnamon oil, or 4 thieves oil
- Hydrogen peroxide
- Toothpaste (in quantity)
- Soft bristled toothbrush (in quantity)
- Dental floss (in quantity)
- Toothpicks (the rounded end type)
- Fluoride rinse (optional, but could come in handy)
- Instant hot and cold packs (in quantity)
- Dental wax (to place over sensitive areas)
- Cotton balls (in quantity)
- Gauze pads (in quantity)
- Black teabags (tannic acid in tea is a natural blood clotting agent)
- Activated charcoal
- Suture kit
- Additional dental resources
- Dental tool assortment
- Monofilament or suture “thread”
- Suture needles
- Celox or quikclot
- Ibuprofen or pain reliever
- Rubbing alcohol to sterilize dental tools
- If you haven’t done so, get a check up with your dentist.
- Begin stocking up on vitamins that can help dental health.
- Click here to download a PDF version of “When There Is No Dentist” by Murray Dickson. Then begin studying this resource to familiarize yourself with how to provide care.
- Start changing some bad eating habits (i.e., eliminating sugars, sodas, honey and molasses and junk food from the diet). If you do eat or drink any sugary items, make a habit of brushing your teeth within 30 minutes to remove any sugars left on your teeth. This can significantly reduce cavities.
- Get in the habit of flossing.
Week 26 of 52: Emergency Sanitation Preparedness (List 2)
In 2010, after a devastating earthquake leveled Haiti, people all over the world wanted to help. Despite all of the aid pouring in, the reconstruction process was put on hold in order to deal with a cholera outbreak, an illness spread from the contamination of food and water. This epidemic was caused by open-defecation and could have been avoided if individuals knew where and how to properly expel waste.
Ready for the shocker? It is a documented fact that more people die after a disaster due to poor sanitation than from the disaster itself. You can do everything right regarding emergency sanitation measures, but that will in no way protect you from all those around you who did not. During times of extended disasters, those that live in close proximity to one another will be at the greatest risk for contracting illnesses from unsanitary conditions. Teaming up with those around you to create a community led sanitation system can assist in avoiding epidemics caused from unsanitary conditions. In this case, the group as a whole takes full responsibility for its success and will see fewer instances of illness.
Quite simply, wherever humans gather, their waste also accumulates. This creates a perfect storm for E. coli and bacteria to invade most of everything that you touch. Not to mention carrying the risk of infectious disease, particularly to vulnerable groups such as the very young, the elderly and people suffering from diseases that lower their resistance. Fly infestations can also pose a problem for sanitation, and if waste is left out in the open, then it will lead to the possibility of epidemics. The following are a few examples of structures that can be built to maintain sanitation during a longer-term disaster:
- Simple pit latrines are the easiest and cheapest way to dispose of waste.
- Ventilated latrine and an odorless earth closet that prevents fly infestations, are also good choices. Learn more by clicking here.
- Decomposing toilets are above ground latrines that are another option and once the waste is decomposed, it can be used in the garden. Click here for more information.
Ever hear of humanure? Solid and liquid waste can be decomposed and composted to be used in the garden. For more information on using liquid waste in the garden, click here.
Toilet paper is always a concern for emergency preparations, however, there are alternatives and in a long-term scenario you will need to begin thinking outside the box. Some off-gridders use rags and thoroughly wash the soiled cloth for other uses. However, if you are opposed to this, other alternatives are available and can be viewed here. And for the lovers of disposable toilet paper, you can purchase larger quantities online at Amazon or at online janitorial supply stores. According to Wikipedia, one American person uses an average of 23.6 rolls of toilet paper per year. In a long term disaster, toilet paper will be a hard to find luxury item and could be a great bartering item. I would like to add however, that stocking up on thousands of rolls of toilet paper will take up a lot of space. So having some on hand for extended emergencies is a good idea, however, for longer term scenarios, you may need to get creative.
Because we are getting into more longer term preparedness items, you want to find prep items that are are multi-functional in order be as efficient as possible. Soap nuts are a great multipurpose prep item. They are cheap, have many uses, and can be composted after use. Soap, both antibacterial and regular, can also be purchased in bulk from your local dollar store.
Preps To Buy:
- 2 weeks or longer toilet paper
- Cat litter
- 5 gallon bucket
- Laundry plunger (optional)
- Wash boards (optional)
- 2 large storage bins to do laundry
- Women’s sanitary needs
- Soap or a multipurpose alternative (in bulk)
- Hand sanitizer (in bulk)
- Mesh screening to use for long term latrine
- Space bags to store toilet paper
- Ensure that you have sanitary items for all members of the family, including women, children and elderly.
- If you have not done so, create a sanitation kit for the home.
- Print this Hesperian health guide on sanitation and add it to your emergency manual.
5) 110 Rules of Civility & Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation by George Washington
#49 – Use no Reproachful Language against any one neither Curse nor Revile.
#50 – Be not hasty to believe flying Reports to the Disparagement of any.
#51 – Wear not your Cloths, foul, ripped or Dusty but See they be Brushed once every day at least and take heed that you approach not to any Uncleaness.