In the armament of the War Between the Sexes, this is one of the better ones that men have at their disposal. It’s not flagrantly sexist and can be uplifting to a woman of a certain age even if it’s not true. It’s a pleasantry, nothing more. Even when it’s not sincere, it’s a tactic that can derail a feminine tirade. (You know, the kind that men of a certain age realize that they can’t win.) I think in retrospect Sen Ted Cruz (R-Tex) should have said something along these lines to Sen Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) the other day when he smacked her down in his questioning of her.
Now before you go off on me, here me out: the hystrionics displayed by Feinstein did neither her nor her sex any favors. They give the lie to the claim that the United States Senate is The World’s Greatest Deliberative Body. That may have been true at one time, when men like Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and John Calhoun crafted grand compromises in the early nineteenth century, or when John McClellan, Robert Taft, and Strom Thurmond came up with The Marshall Plan, but with the preponderance of old hags like Barbara Boxer, Olympia Snowe, and Barbara Mikulski, we can’t say that any longer. “There were giants in the earth in those days” we are told in Genesis 6. Now, not so much. Indeed, they dredged up deep-seated masculine resentments that this is why women shouldn’t be in politics. Every now and then you get a Maggie Thatcher or Sarah Palin, both of whom are political street-fighters, but usually you get feminists who demand equality but pull out the hankies at the first sign of trouble. The Victorian fainting-counch springs instantly to mind.
As is well-known, Feinstein sputtered hysterically, unable to respond to Cruz’s very simple question. All agree that Cruz –and most importantly, his arguments–carried the day. Don’t get me wrong, as someone who believes in the Bill of Rights, I’m glad for that. What upsets me is the fact that a virile Republic such as ours has gotten to the point where our public institutions are dominated by feelings rather than virtues. Despite Feinstein’s setback, the Oprahfication of our culture proceeds apace.
Yes, I know that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid gutted the “assault weapons” ban and I’m glad of that. He didn’t even have forty Democratic Senators in favor of Feinstein’s ludicrous bill. And it’s certainly a good sign that for all the Sturm und Drang of the Sandy Hook atrocity, the GOP and the frontier/rural culture of America stuck to their guns (if you will pardon the pun) and beat back the forces of creeping totalitarianism. But make no mistake, they will be back. The ever-odious Michael Moore issued a veiled threat againt Sen Reid, saying something to the effect that if it were his grandchildren were killed then he would have supported Sen Feinstein’s assault weapons ban. Perhaps that’s true. I’m certainly worried that in our present bitter atmosphere, some wackadoodle will take Moore’s “insight” as a “suggestion” and act upon it, not unlike Charles Manson who discerned messages to him from The Beatles’ White Album, instructing him to go on a killing spree and start a race war which would result in the Apocalypse.
Anyway, Cruz’s take-down was a two-fer: it showed the intellectual vacuity of the Gun Grabbers’ philosophy as well as exposed the uber-feminization of our political culture. This cannot last. It has done much damage to our society on a familial level, all but destroying the concept of manhood. I intend to write more about this in the future, mainly because I believe that Christian anthropology is crucial to civilization. For now let us revel in the humiliation of liberalism and one of its avatars by a man of integrity.
And let’s never forget: MOLON LABE!
Tried it. Didn’t work. She wanted to fight. “What are you trying to say? That I was fat? That I was hideous?” My response was to very carefully and silently make my way to the door and plan to come back after she had something to eat and taken a nap.
update:
Turns out I was correct. Something to eat and a nap. Everything is all better now. 🙂
There were midgets in the earth in those days.
Mentioning Sarah Palin in the same breath as Margaret Thatcher is a greater insult to the Iron Lady than anything any of her political opponents said about her at any time in her career. Ouch!
I know you will probably never think of yourself as a sexist boor. However, if you ever find yourself in a moment of self-reflection as to why other people might consider you such, that, that right there? Exhibit A.
I agree – George – Palin and Thatcher in the same light? No WAY man.
You’re right about everything else though…
Very much I put Palin and Thatcher in the same category, both ideologically as well as tactically. The ideological similarities speak for themselves as they are both women of the Right in the broad, Reaganesque sense. In other words, patriotic, nationalistic, free-market, limited government types. (I know that there are subtle differences between the Right wings in the US and Britain.)
As for the ability to stand up to men and best them in politics, even Palin’s harshest critics have admitted that Alaska is littered with the politcal corpses of those who crossed her.
I wonder how many men have littered the the landscape with political corpses. More than a few, I would imagine.
Agreed Gail. Men have done far worse in this regard in the political arena but that’s kind of the point, Palin herself was no Nervous Nellie while clawing her way up the pole of Republican politics in Alaska (which it must be said had one of the more corrupt Republican establishments in the US). I meant no disrespect to her in this regard but merely wanted to prove a point, that like Thatcher, she went toe-to-toe with men and usually came up the winner.
And like Thatcher she was unique. Unlike 98% of women in politics, she did it on her own without relying on the wealth and/or political connections of a husband or politcal dynasty. Think of Lurleen Wallace (George’s first wife) who became Governor of Alabama when he was term-limited, Nancy Pelosi (the daughter of a powerful Maryland politician and wife of a California plutocrat), Hillary Clinton, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer (rich husband), Lisa Murkowski (whose father was a governor), etc.
I’m actually at a loss to name one other female American office-holder who made it on her own. The only one that springs to mind was the late Ann Richards of Texas but I believe she had some family connections. If anybody can think of somebody else I’d be happy to hear it.
On a top national level? Senator Mikulski springs immediately to mind.
I suppose you mention the starting shooting guard of your local high school basketball team in the same breath as Michael Jordan too. Which is pretty much the experience of watching The Downing Street Years and The Path to Power line up against Going Rogue.
I guess overall you’re right. They both fall within the neo-con grouping.
Enlightened Nate tells George:
Translation:
I think you are a sexist boor. Therefore you are a sexist boor.
Thanks for the heads-up Nate!
Suggesting that someone has lost weight is not only sexist, for the same likely comment would not be used for a male, but also insulting. Any weight a woman happens to be is the perfect weight!
If you are looking for a less insulting comment, try
as an exclammation or
or, if you think that might not be credible, try
One thing I’ve noticed in recent political trends, when any group demands “equality”, what they are really asking for is that their group be treated “more equally than others”.
This is one of the weirder things I’ve read on this blog (which is saying a lot). I read the story before watching the video, and was expecting some entertaining hysterics, but then I watch the video and it is more like the model of civility.
Feinstein (D) was speaking rationally and flexibly, and referencing modern judicial interpretations that most are pertinent to answering the constitutionality question. Cruz was exhibiting the usual monotone can’t-think-for-himself-because-everything’s-black-and-white Tea Party manerisms, and seemed unwilling the consent that there is such a thing as judicial interpretation of the constitution.
Everyone else who speaks on the video clip clearly thinks Feinstein made the better argument.
For the record, I have no particular opinion on the gun control question, and don’t know a thing about any of these people. But going by what I see in the video, George is making stuff up.
Feinstein’s “hysterics” were her responses to Cruz’s very simple question. No she didn’t flail about like a broken-hearted schoolgirl or a society matron who had her butt pinched by the gardener, she couldn’t answer it but instead took umbrage at the very thought that this Freshman would dare to question her since she is obviously of a higher station. Her argument (such as it was) was emotive, not rational.
It’s hard to know what someone is thinking so you have to be careful here, but for the sake of argument, let’s assume she WAS upset because someone “dared to question her.” Is it fair to call her reaction “female?” Men react the same way when their reasoning or position is being questioned. Men who feel threatened by women, for example. – I have a hard time with “protectors of womanhood,” because the first time any woman steps outside of the box of what they consider to be “right” or “appropriate,” it’s “let’s trash women for being female time.” We’re compared to five-year-olds who are subject to triads when hungry and in need of a nap. This is really so insulting. Don’t believe me? Go talk to your wives and see what THEY think! True “protectors of women” don’t want to fashion women into something we’re not; and we’re NOT just wives and mothers. We are adept in assuming a variety of roles, without losing a sense of who we are. Feinstein and Palin are just very bad examples. – Now I guess it’s time for me to go eat and take a nap, right?
That explains everything then. Shapeshifters are among us!
Run… everybody!
elias
*******************
Gail Sheppard on March 23, 2013 at 12:07 pm said:
we’re NOT just wives and mothers. We are adept in assuming a variety of roles, without losing a sense of who we are.
You raise an excellent point, Gail. What I said was sexist but only insofar as I detested Feinstein’s emotional responses. I guess I’m too much an Anglophile but I love watching Britist C-SPAN and watch them go at it. Hard questions are answered as precisely as possible. I was just offended that Feinstein was going to use a tragedy like Moscone’s murder to evade answering some very simple questions. This tactic is too easily used in America these days. AIPAC’s supporters in Congress and the MSM always scream “Holocaust!” in order to try to get us in another war in the Middle East. Why not just be sober and look at the facts? That’s all I ask of our Senators.
You’re forgiven. 🙂
She bugs me too. What’s with all the “chest clutching?!” Does she have any idea how distracting it is to watch someone grope themselves?
Ultimately, one reason men don’t want to debate women (and thus keep them out of office) is because as men, we are at a disadvantage when confronted with a woman. As men, we can go so far as to beat each other up but striking a woman is considered our-of-bounds. I intend to write more about Eros and the biological imperative that makes women exemplars in men’s minds, what I believe to be the innate superiority of females.
Having said that, I thought Cruz was asking substantive questions and he expected substantive answers. Maybe his questions were wrong, maybe her answers would have been right. At the end of the day, we’ll never know. And that to me is a disappointment.
You are 100% right. Men truly are at a disadvantage when it comes to these things. Maybe God’s way of tipping the scales? Don’t know. In the work place, though, women should not be catered to. It should be about ideas; not someone’s sex. Twice in my life, male colleagues have told me they like working with me because I think like a man. Both meant it as a compliment and I received it as such. Today, a man at work emailed me and said: “I love you. I truly mean that.” He “loved me,” because of the way I handled a contract! (Of course, I quickly deleted the email so no one else would get the wrong idea.) This is the way I wish men would treat women, i.e. as their intellectual equals who have something to bring to the table. I hate being thought of as “just a woman.” – I have no problem with the article you wrote. I appreciate you letting me respond and considering what I said in response. So don’t hold back, George, and elias. . . er, uh, “nit picker.” Seriously. It would be no fun if you did!
The “disadvantage” is real. I believe it’s put there by nature and nature’s God. As for myself, I say vive la differnce!
Men and women are supposed to work together in harmony to sanctify creation. I believe it was St. Issac the Syrian who said that restoring that harmony was crucial to our salvation.
IMO women are forced to take on roles for which they are not wholly suited because we men have abandoned ours. The point of the headship given to men was not to make women subservient, but to help men realise our responsibility.
All …isms exist because we like counterfeits rather than the real thing.
This was worth repeating.
[blinking eyes] Queen Tamar? Princess Olga? Empress Theodora? [/blinking eyes]
Ah, Michael, if only all men could see women the way you do. What a credit to your wife.
Gail, my wife is indeed a gem, her willing insistence that I be the spiritual head has both required and allowed me to, by God’s grace, take up my responsibilities, at least a little.
My understanding was more theory than practice before we married 3.5 years ago. She makes it much easier because of her love of God and her love of me.
My late wife, who reposed in 2005 deserves a good deal of the credit for helping me to come closer to putting the theory into practice.
They both thank you.
Gail, I also try to act as Joseph acted toward Mary. If we Orthodox men really venerate Mary, it becomes much more difficult to treat other women badly. Here is a meditation that touches on why: http://glory2godforallthings.com/2013/03/25/hail-mary-full-of-grace-the-cause-of-all-things/#comment-79563
Gail, what I don’t like is the women who INSIST on FULL EQUALITY (based on the false notion that there are no essential differences between men and women) and then dissolve into tears and emotional manipulation in order to gain control of any man they are contending with. God help the male politician who is perceived as ‘attacking’ a female opponent and ‘making her cry’. “Oh the big bad man is soooooo mean” That’s not faaaaaaaaaaaaaair!!!!!
MIchael,
Your comment about full equality brought to mind a quote by the science fiction writer Robert Heinlein. He’s been dead since 1988, I think, but his writing regarding cultural entropy has been absolutely prescient..
For what is is worth, I completely agree that, no matter your gender, if you want to get into the ring, then you have to take your lumps.
No whining.
Virile Republic?
The root of both words is virus (“man”=Latin).
No, George, the root (and also the nominative singular) is Vir, is it not?
As for the biblical, “Behold the man,” that is “Ecce homo,” not Ecce vir or virum or viro.
However, it should be noted that the root of the word ‘virtue” is “vir”, for the word “virtue” (as in the Savior’s words, “I felt virtue go out from Me,”) meant manliness, i.e., power. Our religion is Middle Eastern, insofar as it is human, but we try to forget that or “smooth it over.” Therefore, the attitude toward women in our Middle Eastern Scriptures is, in many ways, very close to that of some of today’s Muslims. St. Paul was as offended by women’s hair as a Shia mullah in today’s Iran. St; Paul found it offensive to angels; the mullahs feel it excites men. The garments of the Theotokos, too, conform to the rules of fundamentalist Islam. There is, I believe only one Icon of the Theotokos which shows her bare-headed: the Russian “Rescue of the Perishing” Icon. In pious justification of this extraordinary exception, it is said that the Theotokos gave her head covering to rescue the lost.
Another display of “Eastern-ness: is when the Bishop (Priest) sits down in the High Place during the reading of the Epistle lesson: Teachers in the East SIT as they teach, while their ;pupils stand before them.. It’s just the opposite of a Western European style classroom, where it is the teacher who must stand up while the students relax in their seats/pews. That’s why some converts hurry to sit down during the Epistle and other “lessons.” Just the opposite of the East.
One Bishop retired to a monastery. He was well liked as a humble, self-effacing person; however, he had one habit which distressed the brethren no end: He stood up all the time during the services. The monks were especially exercised by his habit of standing during the kathismata. Finally, they took the matter into their own hands. One time at Matins, the Bishop was standing piously during the kathismata when a senior monk came up to him and said, “Vladyka! This is a time when one may sit down—-look over there. See? All the monks are sitting.” The Bishop smiled and said, ‘Yes, I see that those Orthodox monks over there are sitting while I, an Orthodox bishop am standing. I’m afraid that if I sit down, they will LIE down!!”
“Therefore, the attitude toward women in our Middle Eastern Scriptures is, in many ways, very close to that of some of today’s Muslims. St. Paul was as offended by women’s hair as a Shia mullah in today’s Iran. St; Paul found it offensive to angels; the mullahs feel it excites men.”
St. Paul talks about women covering their hair in church, not about women needing to cover their heads at all times in public or else be deserving of being raped (and then executed for fornication because a woman’s testimony is worthless against a man’s).
To really discuss Islam and their “god” (not the same being as the Christian Triune God, despite what Francis I recently stated, “Muslims, who worship the one living and merciful God,” continuing on along the pan heresy that the Heterodox “Roman Catholics” have embraced since Vatican II and have even dragged some Orthodox ecumenicists into), we have to go back to its “Prophet” (warning graphic material).
http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/modern_satires/pageonegj4.jpg
http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/modern_satires/pagetwoyf8.jpg
http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/modern_satires/pagethreezf1.jpg
http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/modern_satires/pagefourax0.jpg
http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/modern_satires/pagefivexe5.jpg
http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/modern_satires/pagesixfo7.jpg
=======
Here we see the origins of the Islamic full body covering for women:
http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/modern_satires/pageoneenglishzq5.jpg
http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/modern_satires/pagetwoenglishgj0.jpg
http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/modern_satires/pagethreeenglishba0.jpg
http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/modern_satires/pagefourenglishow0.jpg
http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/modern_satires/pagefiveenglishpk0.jpg
Origin:
1480–90; < Latin virīlis manly, equivalent to vir man (akin to Old English wer man; see werewolf) + -īlis -ile
For sometime I have been somehow persuaded that there was/is a distinction, at least a theological one between "man" as in mankind & "a man" as in he or him. For some reason, I can't get the phrase out of my head which was spoken by a representative of Mankind, as he stepped onto the moon and as a man spoke the words: One small step for a man, one giant leap for Mankind .
All for now.
elias, a man
George says, “The root of both words is virus (“man”=Latin).”
No, George, the Latin word virus is akin to the English word virus. It designates something unhealthy, like the sludge in a swamp or the poison of a viper.
I’m sorry Feinstein is your idea of a woman.
“I know that there are subtle differences between the Right wings in the US and Britain…”
Mmm…yes, subtle differences. Like British Conservatives support a national health care scheme, and a minimum “living” wage, and a social security safety net for the poor, all of which are apparently harbingers of the Anti-Christ for those of the American Right . Oh, and they also look somewhat askance at intelligence-deprived folk who claim that the constitutional right to bear arms means that your average Joe, who is probably one egg short of a dozen and may just turn out to be a pychopath, can buy semi-automatic weapons at the local Wal-Mart without anything more than the most rudimentary of checks. But apart from subtle differences like that, why British Conservatives and the American Right are positively birds of a feather.
Seriously, George, what world do you live in? Oh yes, Oklahoma, right? Where the atmosphere is apparently so rarefied that the Pope is really Orthodox when you get to know him and Sarah Palin looks like an American Margaret Thatcher. God help us…and you.
Basil, your stick figure characterization of the Right in the US is not worthy of comment. As for the National Health Service, Thatcher herself said that her greatest regret was not being able to reform it. Of course we now in America will have the pleasure of watching our entire government collapse with yet another cancerous liability on the body politic AND get bad medical care to boot!
While it is certain that there are more than a few intilectual midgets on the American Right, our true national tragedy is that people who claim to understand the constitution think that it only gurarntees the right to own guns which do not offend liberals or look scary. Why should the CONSTITUTION be limited by the fact that you personally feel conservatives with guns to be idiots and think assault weapons are scary?
Or Basil, someone could rely a little more on rational thinking and learn our history. In doing so, one may learn that a main reasons the NRA was created was to help free slaves protect themselves from the KKK. One may, if he or she so cares to do.
Perhaps this is why a less ’emotional’ response was needed by Feinstein? Perhaps if she had entered into a conversation with Cruz, we all may have learned someone as valuable as this?
On one end, the party she represents touts rational thinking against the ‘crazies’ who cling to their ‘guns and religion’ on the other hand, when faced with the lack of a cogent argument and lack of understanding of the nation’s history, they start to swing their arms around and get all frothy-like in the mouth. Much like that British buffoon on CNN. Oh, and they give the subtle ad hominem attack like you did.
Wow, imagine where the world would be if all those backward, farm boys didn’t use their unintelligent “farm ingenuity” in the villages of Belgium in the early 40’s? Or their deep beliefs of sacredness in the Pacific Theater? It sure wasn’t the forward thinking tea drinking, dainty sandwich eating, and wine making classes of Europe or Australia that the world relied on. It was those Oklahoma boys and their wooden semi-automatic rifles. They sure loved them then. Today, those are the same exact boys, with the same exact heart – the only difference is that they’re not Feinstein because they still actually believe in the oath they took regarding our Constitution. The world spits on them today…and mind you I am anything but favorable of American foreign policy today.
If progressive thinking is the worldview that champions the African-American or civil rights movement, then those who tout that worldview ought to re-read history and reconsider their stance on the 2nd Amendment and Planned Parenthood. The former being crucial to the protection of African-Americans from those you claim are “intelligent deprived”; the latter being the main tool to have them exterminated.
Those who were involved in the civil rights movement in the South made sure to have ARMED protection. Especially when faced with visits in the night from certain white-sheeted folks. Imagine what would have happened had gun control been in effect back then.
I’m glad you brought that up, Lola. Actually, America has had gun control laws since the late 17th century in Jamestown, when blacks and freedmen were forbidden from being armed. After Reconstruction, most Southern states legally limited black folks from being armed. Hmmm, I wonder why that would be?
Well, Harper moved Canada more to the American Right. He has developed energy and I believed he prevented new taxes. He probably favors going away from state health care but its tricky. In the US, the problem is that if your company does not provide insurance for you, you are out of luck. The tax credit schemes by Republicans would leave most Americans with having to pay a lot out of pocket but the Canadian and European system is ration out. Some people in Canada and Europe get the treatment while others have to go to the States to get it. Its complex.
As for guns, Sandy Hook probably did’t have a murder in years. i’m not as pro-gun as many Republicans are some background checks are ok with me since in order to become employed you have to take a drug test and maybe some types of guns and definetly weapons like Tanks and so forth can be ban.
Sarah Palin endorsed Jeff Flake in the primary and there was a better republican candidate, unlike George i see some of her flaws which was in the case of Jeff Flake of Arizona going for what the Republican elite like.
Cynthia, Sarah Palin –like all human beings–has flaws. Having said that we don’t elect perfect people to any office.
No ideal candidates are out there. But there was hardly a better candidate in that pool than Flake, his Mormonism aside.
In the days of the Bolshevik revolution, according to Whata Georgian man and veteran of the Imperial Army whose uncle had been a priest told me, some of the Georgian clergy were seen to wear guns during the Eucharist.
I’m surprised the NRA has not issued a recommendation to arm the clergy, since this (obviously, to the NRA) would have prevented that massacre at the Sikh temple.
I’m a life member of the NRA, but I think the current president of it is a total twit. Why, he even makes Senator Weinstein look competent, and that’s saying a LOT! If she (and others) had allowed members of the previous administration to be prosecuted for their crimes, today’s Obama administration might be acting more sensibly. But they feel that if Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Armey, Wolfie get a pass they have no worries either.
Retro-active prosecution of one’s leaders is not the mark of a healthy society but of a corrupt oligarchy. It does little to deter current leaders from their corruption. It just allows them the mantle of false virtue.
It is the triumph of Orthodoxy tomorrow
TONE PLAGAL II
God is with us, know it you nations and be submissive,
For God is with us.
Hear it to the ends of the earth.
For God is with us.
You mighty shall be defeated.
For God is with us.
Even if you should prevail, again you will be defeated,
For God is with us.
Whatever plan you conceive, the Lord will destroy,
For God is with us.
Whatever word you shall speak shall not abide among you,
For God is with us.
Your terror we shall never fear, nor be disturbed by it,
For God is with us.
The Lord, our God, him shall we bless, and only him do we fear.
For God is with us.
And if I trust in him, it shall be a blessing to me,
For God is with us.
And I shall trust in him, and shall, be saved by him,
For God is with us.
Lo, I and the children which God has given to me,
For God is with us.
The people that walked in darkness saw a great light,
For God is with us.
Upon us, who dwell in the land of the shadow of death, a light shall shine,
For God is with us.
For a Child was born unto us, a Son, and was given to us,
For God is with us.
Whose government is upon his shoulder,
For God is with us.
And of his peace, there shall be no boundary,
For God is with us.
And his name shall be called: Messenger of the Divine Will,
For God is with us.
Wonderful Counselor,
For God is with us.
Mighty God, Master, Prince of Peace,
For God is with us.
Father of the age to come,
For God is with us.
Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit,
For God is with us.
Now and ever and to the ages of ages. Amen.
For God is with us.
The two choruses together, slowly:
God is with us, know it you nations and be submissive,
For God is with us.
Gosh, I hate to follow “Yo” with this less than edifying question, but how do you all feel about gun toting women? Gun manufactures are making women part of their target audience now. (Bet that will scare some of you.) There is at least one AR-15 out there sporting a “Hello Kitty” on it. http://tinyurl.com/ax6uhea
Do you think it is “feminine” to carry a weapon like this? Should women in the Church be armed with assault rifles? Because if the answer is “no,” maybe we’ve gone too far with Second Amendment rights.
AGail, my wife at one time a state champ in black powder rifle . She has shot skunks off her porch. She grew up on a ranch.
Self and family protection is just as much available to women. If the guns are some kind of political totum that’s wrong but you can’t take away or restrict freedoms because of their misuse by a few.
As always it is a matter of encouraging virtue.
Your wife sounds amazing! But seriously, Michael, would you want the REST of us to be armed? Tell the truth. I hate to say it, but I wouldn’t. Especially after seeing some of these reality shows. Imagine “Dance Moms” with assault rifles! It’s just plain scary. Not that all women are like that (of course), but I’ve got to say, some of us shouldn’t be “packing heat” Even I have my limits. There is something about a pink assault rifle that totally turns me off. I don’t WANT weapons to be “feminized.” They are deadly and if someone is going to carry one, I don’t want them to think it’s “cute” or “chic.”
Gail, I see your point. My wife is well trained, enjoys the discipline of shooting. Romanticising guns is not a good idea. Understanding that they are dangerous tools and being trained how to use them properly.
Gail,
Frankly, I am much more concerned with the numbers of people (both men and women) who have the franchise to vote, and do so without doing any research – rather relying on the advertising barrage, and the lame stream media. I fear for my country. And looking around, it is with good reason.
If you’ve been through (and I have) the training program required to get a CCL, you would hear, in very blunt terms, about the responsibility you take on, and the costs associated with it. If, God forbid, you should have to defend yourself with a firearm, you can plan on spending $10,000 or more to go through the process of being “no billed” in the courts. And that’s for a very clear cut case of self defense. This is apart and aside from all of the moral/guilt/psychological costs. Every course I’ve ever attended, the instructor has then said, “If you are not willing to take this on, we will be happy to refund your fee.”
That said, every woman/person need not be armed. The fact that I might be armed, provided some deterrent protection for all around me. You see, the bad guys don’t know who might be carrying in any given situation.
That’s why the “no gun zones” are such an unmitigated disaster. Only law breakers come armed to such places, and there they find easy pickin’s. Look back on EVERY mass shooting in the last 5 years. They took place in no gun zones.
Only posted ‘No Gun Zone’ in my neighborhood it the Animal Shelter. Go figger!
but I haven’t visited the jail or the state capitol bldgs here
As far as guns in church– nobody should have guns in church although will mean some folks getting killed by crazies.
I’m going to be taking gun safety classes with my husband, just so I know how to handle one properly if I have to. I have no problem if a woman wants to arm herself with a weapon. Its only so much a woman can do to fight off a male assailant who is able to overpower her physically.
That said, its likely not a good idea to a gun in church. Unless someone with an issue walks in armed (and that person likely is not respecting the fact that this is a GUN-FREE zone [and it sure is interesting how so many shootings seem to happen in such zones . . . why didn’t the shooter respect the fact that these zones are GUN-FREE???]).
Now, YOU can have a gun, in my book! You are sober minded and intelligent. – Others? Not so much. – Every time I go to the DMV, I shudder to think I share the road with some of these people. Imagining them all having access to assault rifles is BEYOND terrifying, especially here in CA. Thank God we have more restrictions than most states (or so I am told). Every day in the “sunshine state” is an adventure.
Ms. Sheppard,
I’m sorry I didn’t see this earlier or I would have told you this story, as it has happened to me several times: There are times when I had left a correctional institution in a city I had flown to without allowing myself the proper amount of time to return to the airport, return the rental car, change my clothes, blah, blah, blah. So, as the TSA will accept any “government-issued” identification with your photograph as proof of identity, I would leave the whole string of stuff around my neck (ID, whistle – in case you get in trouble & need help – hooks for keys you sing out, body alarms). Southwest has you line for “pre-boarding,” (so when the incoming lands they hurry you onto the plane) and they come by and check your ID and boarding-pass. I’m not paying attention & the agent whispers something. I same, normal voice, “Pardon me?” She sort of “shushes” me and whispers, “Are you flying armed today?” I say, “Armed, like with a gun?” Shsss! “Lady, who would be stupid enough to issue a gun to me.”
This happened to me again just this year, and it was infinitely more unpleasant because – for those who know HALT – I was too tired and out of it, I actually just kept walking because I didn’t pay attention to the “low-voice” question. Two them then “set upon me” with the “armed” question and I called them “hillbillies,” which proved quite unhelpful. My apologies for the insult. They re-scanned me & I missed the flight. I was singing Crosby, Stills, & Nash, Almost Cut My Hair. It was Valentine’s day, so when I finally made it home, as a gift to my wife, I cut off my extensive hair. The lesson for you, Ms. Sheppard, even here in sunny SoCal, appearances can be misleading!
Wow. This is my damaged brain without a thorough re-read. And another re-read. You can’t imagine what I what thought this said. All apologies.
But, but, but, but GAIL!!! The Constitution clearly directs that the gangs of South Los Angeles (they are totally militias, like our gangs back East that once overthrew the King) are necessary to our country/society. They MUST be armed, as the NRA constantly reminds us. Those “anti-gang” units are really anti-American and anti-constitutional, right? I mean, it’s all about citizen militias, no? So these L.A. gang-bangers and the various biker groups, etc., militias all of them, are in danger from these liberal wing-nuts who DON”T want these militias and just thing they can rely on the National Guard, right? Right.
No, Bishop Tikhon. Militias must be run by white men that don’t ride motorcycles!
Perfect.
Well, that remark about women carrying assault weapons remines me of Procopius famous line about the women getting in the Nika riot with their daggers.
Considering the gravity of this whole mangled topic, may I submit my view via the following wisdom, if I recall accurately, from my college days:
(sic)
Pop-oculus nauticus vir sum,
Pop-oculus nauticus vir sum,
Ad finam pugnabo
Quod “spinach” consumo,
Pop-oculus nauticus vir sum.
(Toot toot!)
Semper ubi sub ubi.
Adjusting to the Lenten diet after Clean Week?
Here are the instructions, from Russian usage on Deacons:
http://transfig.orthodoxws.com/files/Bulgakov/0682.pdf
Here is the page that you click on for other sections:
http://www.transfigcathedral.org/bulgakov.html
Unfortunately, the translation, while good, refers to footnotes in the Russian version, is not paginated and is lacking footnote. The specific issue for which you want a Bulgakov citation has a footnote pertaining to the necessity for the Deacon to follow the priest . Can’t find a copy of the handbook in Russian to translate the notes to the section