Toting a Gun

One of the more compelling pieces of talk radio I have recently heard involves the tale of a man named Mark Fiorino. Fiorino openly carries a holstered handgun. Recently, while walking in Philadelphia, he was challenged and then put under arrest by police suspicious of his gun possession. The police were pretty rough with him, and he captured the dialogue (or, rather, confrontation) on a voice recorder.

I've heard Fiorino interviewed and he sounds very well spoken and very knowledgeable of the law. Even the city's police commissioner has stated that Fiorino had the right to carry his firearm and that the police were wrong.

Unfortunately, the incident that transpired between Fiorino and the police sounds like a civilian looking for a fight and a police officer too quick to become aggressive with a potential problem. There's good coverage of it on The Daily News website and on Michael Smerconish's website.

I'm not opposed to one's right to own a handgun. I can't say, however, that I find the open carrying of a firearm tactful and comforting. Toting firearms is something I'd rather see law enforcement and the military do. So few of us have training in the use of them, and when one is not comprehensively trained, the likelihood of something bad occurring multiplies.

I'm glad I don't feel compelled to walk around with a gun on my hip. It seems more important to trust one's neighbors, one's police, and one's faith to protect them rather than instinct and lethal force.

Due Process

It would appear as if the 24/7 news cycle has moved on to debating the ethics of what President Obama ordered last week when he sent in American armed forces personnel to kill Osama bin Laden. On Michael Smerconish's afternoon show, for instance, I heard of how Rosie O'Donnell has held forth that the assassination of bin Laden was unethical in that it denied him his due process rights.

I'm not admitting that O'Donnell is a journalist.

However, her viewpoint has been expressed by others.

Bin Laden represented a threat that occupies a gray area between crime and war. Criminals are deserving of due process. A police officer who has an alleged criminal in his crosshairs can't just drop him if there is any chance of apprehending the subject. To do so would be criminal, ammoral, and a violation of . . . due process.

Meanwhile, we don't normally wage assassination campaigns against the heads of state of nations with which we are at war. The nations of the West agreed on standards, some codified and some unwritten, about conduct in times of war. Heads of state are, for some reason, off limits. Perhaps to prevent a descent into barbarity. Enemy soldiers captured in uniform are accorded specific rights. Enemy combatants not in uniform are not. Though war is savage, war has custom that in some ways, ironically, protects some life.

Bin Laden, meanwhile, committed an act of war against the U.S. but did not represent or lead a state. He led an amorphous entity that carried out policy and war, but has no recognizable population, borders, or government. It claims no sovereignty.

But Al Qaeda was, without doubt, a threat. And citizens of a nation look to its head of state to protect them from threats. When threats aren't recognized and met, more threats emerge. President Obama had a moral obligation to the American people to confront the threat bin Laden represented. Bin Laden did not lead (or even pretend to lead) a state. He did not claim U.S. citizenship and he was persona non grata through most of the world. Obama had no choice. The American people can't afford hesitation over resolving a threat that so defies the customs of international relations and the life of American citizens.

Though I believe our president did the right thing, there's a sadness that he had to do it. One doesn't like wishing ill (or death) on another. One of the grave responsibilities our presidents take on is the power to order the likely death of others. In some ways, what President Obama did last week was no lighter than what Truman decided to do in August 1945 or Lincoln in April 1861. A somber awakening for me is that one of many prices one must pay to be president is that as president one is tasked with dilemmas that push the boundaries of what is ethical and just. Perhaps this is why churches often pray for our elected leaders.

$3,000

That's the total I have virtually lost on that Blackjack app. Definitely helping to show me I'm not fit for the casino scene.

The best $2 I've ever spent . . .

Okay, perhaps that's an exaggeration.

Recently I've been feeling the itch to play Blackjack. I'm not much of a gambler, yet I've had a few chances to play black jack at casinos. I lose more often than I win. However, once or twice a year it's something I really feel like I think I want to do.

So, I decided to spend $1.99 on an App for the iPod that lets me fritter away time playing it without putting any real money at stake.

Great move.

I'm reminding myself of how relatively slow and naive I am when it comes to the game. With the iPod I'm being reminded of how I do have a hard time concentrating enough to instantaneously add the numbers and calculate the odds. It's a lot easier to have the computer prompt me to place a bet or make a decision than it is to have a dealer or the other people at a non-virtual table push me. At no cost (well, other than time and the $1.99 price) I find out how I really don't know the strategy of the game that well.

For $1.99 I can feel foolish in front of my computer screen rather than paying $50 or $60 to feel foolish for an hour at a casino.

I like gambling. I like playing the odds. But if I do so for real, it seems better to do it with real people I know at a cabin rather than with non-virtual strangers in a casino. Or, better yet, it should involve moving some plastic or wood playing pieces across a board and using dice to see who wins Karelia, the Cold War, or gets punished by the robber.

2075

So one of the ideas being bandied about to reconcile the budget is to raise the Social Security retirement age to 69 by 2075. My first reaction was to say that it's no matter to me. I'll be long since retired by then, and perhaps not even on this earth anymore. But then it struck me . . .

Sam is 69 years old in 2075.

Okay, now I'm paying attention.

One of the great generational dialogues we're in the throes of having regards the value of the older worker. Contradictory forces have presented us with a dilemma. Most journalism about the potential for economic disaster regarding our national debt involve raising the retirement age for Social Security. Seems logical. The longer we work, the more we can save, the more output we can generate, the less time (gulp) we have to blow through our savings.

I guess the cynic would say we aim to work longer so our money can outlive us.

Yet the business world has for a decade or so been eager to push those in their late 50s and early 60s into retirement as quickly as possible. After all, older workers have a higher labor cost. Ironically, as we have made the transition to a service-oriented economy, and where a greater proportion of us find ourselves in white collar positions, we're actually able to work longer. And, our bodies can last longer once we have retired. After all we haven't been worn down the way our factory-working forebears were.

So, though I hear the calls for Americans to save more and work longer, I wonder what attempt is being made to reshape the managers and entrepreneurs of the world and get them to differently value the older worker.

150

I had been so earnest this year about commemorating anniversaries on this blog and then I slipped in not even mentioning the 150th anniversary of the Civil War's start. Shame on me.

A century and a half ago the states of our nation were going through quite a crucible. The seven core states of the Confederacy were, of course, out of the Union already. But in the aftermath of Sumter the remaining states had to cast their lot with one side or the other. So if we were reading the news on April 17, 1861 the news would have been of fiery debates in the border states, and of enthusiastic crowds in the north sending off regiments of infantry to answer President Lincoln's call for 75,000 volunteers.

On both sides the men who rose in legislative sessions to argue for one side or the other were certainly motivated by partisan instincts, but partisanship fueled by a profound love of country and a conviction in what the country's founding and identity meant. Even though for some that identity was marred by slavery.

This Day In History

Fifty-two years ago today Dr. King was shot to death. A tragic event within a tragic year. Some thoughts regarding it:

One of the more moving historical sites one can ever visit is the museum that was built from the hotel where Dr. King was killed. It's the National Civil Rights Museum in Memphis at the Lorraine Motel. If I were to make a list of required stops for an American to visit, it would be on the list.

Dr. King's death occurred in the same year as a great deal of turmoil: RFK's assassination, the Mexico City Olympics, the Vietnam War's stalemated climax. I wonder how Americans must have felt bouncing from startling story to startling story.

I once read an interesting thesis that President Johnson, who announced his intention to not run again for office came a few days before King's death, was hoping to conduct a victory tour in his last year as a lame duck. He would ride a circuit of bringing Vietnam to a close, passing more substantial civil rights legislation, and extending his war on poverty. King's assassination upset the political momentum he had tried to build.

Dr. King was born on or near the year my dad was born. I wonder what more he could have done with his life had he been granted another 52 years to still be with us today.