Libercontrarian

Crushed between the wheels of capitalism and big government.

Contrast These Two Men

Most of you know The Libercontrarian, the Sergeant-Major of the Armchair Commando Brigade of Aurora, Colorado as "underwhelmed," a person so under-impressed by his inability to find challenging, useful employment that he identifies himself in lowercase. He's not even excited enough about his employment to capitalize his moniker.

My more faithful readers can look back to a day when I commented about my deep appreciation for the good luck and great fortune we have for being Americans. On that day, I came to realize that I love my life, I am appreciative of the job that I possess, and that my happiness is only dependent upon the self-derived state of my outlook - and that I have it pretty easy!

As Thanksgiving approaches, we should be once again mindful of the Blessings of Our Lord who has bestowed upon us a (mostly) righteous nation, and of our individual good fortunes for the year. I'm sure all the "Jesusland" labelers are spinning in their chairs right now, vomit and froth spouting from their tortured mouths ;@). Ralph? Ralphie boy? It's OK, I won't hit you with any more religion than that, bro. Wouldn't want you to have a seizure, or nuttin'.

What all of this is leading up to is my contrast of two men I met Friday night in my retail store (I sell cell phones, and am pretty dog-gone good at it). One man, about my age, maybe younger, is dressed in a fashionable camo sweater - he's stocky, head shorn in the unmistakable pattern of a "high and tight." His bearing and look says "military" all the way. I asked him if I could give him a hand, and we got to talkin' - he's the CO (that's Commanding Officer to you, Ralphie) of a Marine Company here in the Denver metro area. I believe he's a reservist. This man has buried four Marines this week, lost in the fighting at Fallujah. He is traveling around the country, comforting bereaved parents. The Major is humble, decent, smart, friendly, and kind. He is the man at the forefront of the homebound Marine's toughest mission - he gets to be the guy who drives up to a Marine's home and report to his parents or wife or kids the terrible sacrifice that their child or husband or father has made for the safety of our nation. I enjoyed talking with him, and could not help wondering if I had chosen a different path - stayed in the Navy as a Surface Warfare Officer instead of retreating back to civilian life when I flunked out of flight school, if I would have served with this man, and if he would have called me "comrade."

I contrast the ethic of this noble man with the customer who slithered up to me next - his daughter had her prepaid cell-phone stolen from her that he bought a month earlier, and he "wondered" if there was any kind of warranty. "Like what?," I asked. I was thinking, "like when you were in grade school and you dropped your lunch, if they'd give you another one for free?" He slithered around the point - he was obviously asking me if I - or AT&T - would just give him another cell phone.

So I pressed him on the point, mostly because I'm a prick. I wanted to see how far he was going to take this; if he truly felt that his daughter's irresponsibility, which was certainly imparted from him, was someone else's duty to "overcome."

"Are you asking me if AT&T will pay for another cell phone as a result of your daughter losing hers?"

"Ye--ess?"

"No sir," I said with obvious relish, "if you didn't buy insurance on that phone - and I'm not even sure that they offer any such thing for a pre-paid unit - your daughter is responsible for keeping track of her phone. The good news is that a replacement is only $139, which is cheaper than what it was when you bought it three months ago." This brought on a wishy-washy, fumbled affirmation from him.

Now, what adult needs to be told such a thing? Why do I have one man in front of me who has the responsibility for looking out for the lives of hundreds of young Marines, and whom has been blessed with such capabilities of responsibility, and another who raises an irresponsible child because he himself is irresponsible?

"... Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more." Luke, chapter 12, verse 48 (sorry, Ralph).

posted by: underwhelmed at November 21, 2004 18:51 | link | comments (9) |

Comments:

#1  23 November 2004 - 07:23

 

You talkin' to me? (my best DeNiro impression).

Here's something for you:

Judge not, lest ye be judged. - Matthew 7:1

You're calling me a "Jesusland labeler"?

You are implying that I don't know what a CO is?

You're calling some girl in your store that you don't even know "irresponsible" because she lost her phone.

You don't know me and you don't know this girl. Perhaps you can tell me how much structured teaching you have had in religion and Christianity. I studied it plenty. Perhaps you can tell me how war has personally affected you and the sacrifices you personally made. How many VA hospitals have you been to in your lifetime? Maybe you can tell me how you never lost anything in your life.

ralph

#2  23 November 2004 - 07:51

 

I've been to several VA hospitals - I visited there as part of a professional singing group to entertain veterans receiving treatment.

As far as loss goes, Ralph - I have no living relatives save a sister and an uncle. Everyone I've ever loved is dead from cancer, all taken prior to 60.

War affected me from my youth - the most important male figure in my life, my father, departed when I was five to fight in it. It was a year of terror for me; I grew up in a military family, and was an officer myself in the Navy. One of my best friends in all the world was killed defending his country; I lost 6 shipmates in two years.

And yes, someone who loses something, and then asks that someone else cover her mistake is indeed irresponsible.

Lastly, I don't need to post my bona fides to validate my experiences to you or anyone else - I believe that my good ideas do that very well. If you don't think so, then you are free not to agree with my opinions; just don't stop communicating as nothing worhtwhile gets accomplished without intellectual discourse.

underwhelmed

#3  23 November 2004 - 08:28

 

I don't know why you introduced me into this post. Perhaps my lack of blind support to arm every citizen in this country is the cause? Furthermore, I don't know how prepaid cellphones work but if the customer loses the phone, it would seem reasonable to disable the lost phone and credit some amount towards a replacement. After all, I assume part of a prepaid cellphone is payment for the minutes used. I bought a set of tires from the tire store down the street. They were only a couple of months old and my better half got a flat tire. She didn't know it until a guy flagged her down. I put the temporary spare on it and drove it to the place where I bought the tires. I was hoping the tire was under warranty and stated as much when I left the car. Later they called me to inform me that the tire was ruined because it was driven on flat. He gave me half off on the replacement tire and I didn't even ask him for a discount. He did this because he knows I'm a loyal customer and he wants my business back. I really don't understand why you are heaping scorn on this guy and his daughter. I'd of asked the same thing.

I've been "touched" plenty by war. My father and two brothers both served. I feel extremely thankful that I grew up in a time of peace. That said, I would have proudly gone to Iran when the hostages were taken. Unfortunately, our spineless president at the time didn't think it was necessary. In hindsight, it was one of number of failures that led to 9/11. My nephew is in the National Guard and he's in Baghdad as we type. I found your CO reference insulting.

Finally, here's another story for you. My brother was walking down the street and was robbed by a couple of 16 year old kids with a handgun. He didn't have any money on him so they took his sports coat and shot him in the chest. It missed his heart by millimeters and he walks around with a chunk of lead floating around in his shoulder till this day. You can talk about all the leftist hippies until you are blue in the face. The reality is, our large urban areas are war zones and reasonable application and enforcement of gun laws is the only solution I can see to stem this tide.

ralph

#4  23 November 2004 - 10:02

 

My support to "arm every countryman" could hardly be called "blind," as a citizen's right to self defense against criminals and despots is inalienable - a God-given right. Although enumerated in the Constitution, the Second Amendment merely notes the existence of a right; it does not empower any government body to grant the right as no group of imperfect men is capable of "authorizing" something that is created by God. For an excellent analysis of this topic, I reference Jeremy Waldron of the Boston Review.

Your poor brother had the right to defend himself on the terrible day that he was robbed and shot, except that to actually attempt to do so would have been itself a breach of an obviously illegal local ordinance, the end result of which disarmed the victim. Strangely enough, that illegal local ordinance (which sought to displace the Constitution) didn't manage to disarm his assailants. If anything, your brother should be an advocate for concealed carry, as if he had been packing that day, things might have gone very differently for him - and for his attackers. Did you ever consider that their next victim may not have been so lucky? Maybe he was killed because your brother was not empowered to stop them. Hey, 2+ million crimes per year are arrested in process by the often non-violent display of firearms by the victims.

Your wife's flat tire may have occurred because of a defect in the tire. It also may have occurred because she ran over something. In any case, the fact that she failed to notice the deficiency and continued to drive the car on the flat increased her responsibility for its condition. This made her in some part negligent for the loss of the tire. Many manufacturers and retailers will 100% avoid responsibility when a customer is even 1% negligent with regard to product failure; they look at it as an escape to their responsibility - immoral, indeed, and certainly bad commerce, but legal.

My customer's IRRESPONSIBILITY was ENTIRELY CAUSATIVE for THE loss of her cell phone - 100%. Neither AT&T, me, or anyone else has any responsibility for any portion of her loss, and thus bear no obligation to replace her phone. To have even asked me to do so is prima facie evidence of irresponsibility on the part of her father.

Didn't you ever take a business law class? Did you ever raise kids? Didn't you have to teach them about right and wrong, and about responsibility? If so, why are we having this discussion about such an obvious point?

I have noticed a very typical liberal pattern in your discourse, Ralph. I'll pose a question or a point, and you'll fail to address it. This avoidance of liberal logic traps is the classic pattern of emotion-based thinking. Remember when I asked you how you were planning on collecting the firearms in the utopian world that you would erect? You didn't answer. You asked me about owning hand-grenades, M1 Abrams Main Battle Tanks, and bazookas.

Here's a direct answer for you - why SHOULDN'T I be able to own such implements, if I were able to afford them? What, conceivably, would I do with those devices that is any more illegal or dangerous, if I am even remotely careful, than the sports shooting I do right now? If I can afford an M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank, would my ownership of this weapon change my fundamental character? Would I, after an argument with my boss or my wife, drive said tank over the local animal shelter or kindergarten?

No, I wouldn't do anything else that some soldier, who's blessed with no more moral compunction than me, would do. People like you, who base their arguments in illogical, emotion-based foundation, are always possessed of the idea that everyone is less moral than some government body, which is, oddly enough, run by imperfect humans, instead of perfect computers or God.

underwhelmed

#5  23 November 2004 - 12:06

 

You have no God given right to brandish weapons of war in a civil society. You know it and I know it. This is why you can't buy a hand grenade at Wal-Mart. The only extremist thinking I'm seeing on this board is coming from you. OBL has the God given right to possess WMD? I don't think so. I don't think he has the right to possess a firecracker and plenty of people are dying to make that a reality. I don't have a God given right to carry weapons of war on the street of civil, peaceful society and neither do you. There is no such right enumerated in the Constitution or any other government document. In fact, there are references to NOT having "vessels of war". The Constitution calls for a "well regulated militia" and you can't change the words no matter how hard you try.

Perhaps you yearn for the day of the old wild west. I don't. My grandfather was shot in the head and killed with a handgun while his store was being robbed. That was in 1930's. This nonsense has been going on longer than you would imagine. If you are so fond of a society armed to the teeth, I'll recommend Iraq again. Is that your vision of a utopia? Handguns are implements of war and the government has the responsibility and duty to regulate their purchase and use. The same is true for military assault weapons. You may think society would be better if everyone walked around with hand grenades but the vast and sane majority beg to differ.

When the tire store called, they said the warranty was void because the tire was driven on flat. I told them to put a new one on. When I went to the store to pay the bill and pick up the car, I told the cashier that he was under charging me. The store manager informed me that he took half off.

I am a classic liberal. You mind your business and I'll keep to mine. You want to force your vision of utopian anarchy where everyone can walk around with bottles of anthrax and handguns. I'll pass on that deal. There are inventions, machines and substances which represent a grave threat to society. The government has the duty and responsibility to regulate these things. If you don't understand this basic concept, there's a hovel in Montana with your's and Teddy K's name written all over it.

Once again, I never bought a pre-paid cellphone so I'm not clear on this. If AT&T charges for the price of the phone and X hundreds of cellphone minutes and I lose the phone without exhausting the X hundreds of minutes, it would seem that AT&T would want to give the customer a discount on a new pre-paid cellphone for the amount represented by the unused minutes. I don't really care that you guys don't but it seems like good business practice. I certainly understand why the guy asked if I understand the concept of a pre-paid cellphone properly.

ralph

#6  23 November 2004 - 22:56

 

Ralph, you said, "You have no God given right to brandish weapons of war in a civil society."

Seeing as how I have demonstrated numerous times in this conversation that all Americans indeed DO have A GOD-GIVEN RIGHT to do that very thing, and since your saying I don't doesn't make your claim demonstrably true, I've concluded that I'm arguing with:
1.) A constitutional scholar whose intellect is superior to mine
or
2.) A person who just can't get his mind around the concept of PROVING AN ARGUMENT by using logic, valid points instead of non-sequiturs, and case law, writings of the founders, etc. like I did!

Since it is now apparent to me that you don't know more about any of this stuff than I do, and in fact, may know considerably less (or are actively being obtuse so as not to have to deal with reality), then I'm unsure of how any further discussion will resolve anything.

I offer proof, you say "you're wrong." I cite writings of the founders - you talk about hand-grenades at Wal-Mart. I ask you a direct question - you merely repeat your emotionalist claims.

"You say 'to-MAY-to,' I say 'to-MAH-to,'

Let's call the whole thing off."

underwhelmed

#7  24 November 2004 - 07:07

 

You post a couple of excerpts from newspapers in the 1800's and a couple of quotes and that is proof? I missed your proof. Check out the website I posted. It gives you many historical documents and puts the whole thing in a historical context.

The reason you can't own military weapons is because they have no place in a civil, peaceful society. They are dangerous and take away the rights of people to have a safe and civil society. Why SHOULDN'T I be able to walk around main street buck naked? Why SHOULDN'T I be able to masturbate in a tree in a public park? Why SHOULDN'T I be able to ride my horse on a freeway? There are plenty of rules in society. I know you don't like them.

I support your right to own a firearm. You do not have a right to obtain your own military arsenal, start your own vigilante or private militia or build your own personal atomic bomb. When you do so, you are endangering society at large and I will excercise my right of self-defense by calling the police.

The logic involved in the hand grenade issue is an important one. You are logically consistent in the fact that you support people owning all manner of military weaponry in civil and peaceful society. Unfortunately, your inability to draw a line in the sand leads you to an interesting paradox. You propose to me that by not having any rules in regards to military weaponry, you will deliver to me a peaceful and ordered society. I say to you, just the opposite will happen and is happening. I have all of human history to back up that assertion. War has its time and place (it's true, look it up in the Bible). Our day to day living on Mainstreet USA is NOT the time and place.

At any rate, this has been an excellent and thought provoking discussion. If you wish to bail out because you don't feel any progress is being made, that is fine with me.

ralph

#8  30 November 2004 - 11:33

 

Wow, even more fun on the homefront. I won't presume to speak for Nick. But just for fun and giggles, let's talk about how war has affected me :-).

Cowperthwaites, Wolfes and Harpers (my forebears) come to the USA in the years between 1870 and 1910.
Spanish-American War - Great G'Father charges up San Juan Hill with Teddy Roosevelt, doesn't get a scratch on him
WWI - Great G-Father serves in the trenches in France, loses hearing to a hand grenade, catches pneumonia.
WWII - Grandfathers and Uncles all serve, all are either bomber crewman, infantry or medics. All see combat in 44 and 45, one is wounded badly enough to be disabled the rest of his life.
Korea - another uncle serves in Frozen Chosin.
Vietnam - Father and uncle serve there, both are combat engineers, both come home (a miracle since combat engineers see as much combat as infantry and have to do their own job too)
Cold War - Myself and most of my cousins serve in the Army, Navy and Marines. I spend several years on the Inter-German Border.
Desert Storm - I spend a lovely 7 months in scenic Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq as a tank crewman.
War on Terror - my sister-in-law is about 5 blocks from ground zero on 9/11/2001, we don't know if she is alive or dead for 10 hours. My cousin's husband has the optic nerve in one eye severed serving in Iraq (he's a Marine, originally from Boulder, CO). Another cousin is at Fort Hood training to deploy to Iraq next year.

Yep, war and the military is a big part of my life. As a career NCO I think I know one or two things about it and the responsibility that comes with it.

The tire analogy is really bad. A road hazard damage on a tire under warranty is covered by the tire manufacturer because you paid for a tire with a warranty. If they determine the damage is due to negligence (under inflating the tire, for example) you won't get a pro-rated replacement, by the way. Personal responsibility, right? This girl lost her cell phone and didn't have insurance on it. Why on earth does AT&T have any responsibility whatsoever? It's her fault, her cost, her responsibility. But then again, I don't live in the world you do.

Anonymous

#9  30 November 2004 - 11:36

 

Ralph said: "The reason you can't own military weapons is because they have no place in a civil, peaceful society. They are dangerous and take away the rights of people to have a safe and civil society."

Bull. The person who uses that weapon takes away the rights of people to have a safe and civil society. The gun didn't get up and walk out the front door and shoot someone, the person did. Put the responsibility where it belongs, on the person.

Anonymous

Comments: