By Edwin Cooney
“Gotta love Florida's concealed hand gun law!” proclaimed the headline of an email a friend of mine sent me recently. Its author had a “happy” story to tell.
Two men, 22-year-old Donicio Arrindell and 21-year-old Frederick Gadson, were stupid enough to rob a Plantation, Florida Subway shop late on a Wednesday evening not long ago.
The two men surely saw the 71-year-old John Lovell finishing his meal as they robbed the cashier but must have disregarded him. Eventually, they got around to robbing him as well and shoved him into a bathroom. What they didn’t know, until it was too late, was that John Lovell, a former Marine pilot who’d flown both John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson before working for Delta and then Pan Am, possessed a concealed weapon. He was also a crack shot.
When it was all over, Arrindell was dead and Gadson was in Broward Medical Center with a head wound.
We who have the luxury of reading the story can be excused, I suppose, if we view it much as we would a good western. After all, the “good guy” who was the victim of Arrindell’s and Gadson’s selfish and willful deed came out on top. However, I think it is fair to say that none of us would like to have personally witnessed or taken any part in that tragic incident.
Even more, as I see it, the tragedy goes beyond the actual occurrence of the incident to the forces that brought it about and subsequently echoed in the wake of the tragedy.
First, here are two young men with their entire lives ahead of them who somehow have gotten it into their heads that they, through the use of force, may reasonably obtain money by intimidating and perhaps harming the rest of us. Thus, they obtain masks and weapons and proceed to bully their way to their definition of prosperity.
Second, because men like Arrindell and Gadson do what they do, we’re compelled to spend billions of dollars a year on adequate police protection and penal retention which could be better spent on education, health care, or our own personal enjoyment.
Third, and even more tragic, we’re intimidated into believing that if everyone carried a gun, the incidence of crime throughout the country would dramatically diminish. In other words, if Arrindell and Gadson had known that Lovell was armed, and perhaps that every other restaurant in town was serving an armed customer, they wouldn’t have dared commit armed robbery!
We’re informed that thanks to Florida’s concealed weapon law, John Lovell, a man of steady nerve and skill with a firearm, was able to effectively end the criminal careers of Arrindell and Gadson. That’s all well and good, but there’s a crucial piece of information that’s not in the email that I received.
Many years ago, I had the occasion to ride on a Trailways bus between Batavia and Rochester, New York with an inmate who’d just been released from New York’s Attica State Prison. (Back then it was still called Attica State Correctional Facility.) That particular prisoner told me that many times those who commit armed robbery do so with empty weapons. He insisted that the weapon is often strictly for show. Thus, what we haven’t been told is whether either Arrindell’s or Gadson’s weapons were loaded. As some will justifiably point out, in no state is burglary or even armed robbery punishable by death.
Still, a largely unarmed public can be excused if it takes seriously the sight of a thug wielding a weapon whether empty or loaded. Nevertheless, I believe that we, the innocent public, often miscalculate the forces that motivate antisocial behavior.
As much as they need stopping, men and women desperate enough to commit antisocial behavior will never be stopped by sheer numbers. Whether they are involved in an armed robbery, murder, terrorism or international war, they face danger which is usually quite secondary to their cause. Adolf Hitler, as he demonstrated on April 30th, 1945, was ready to end his life, not as an act of apology or closure for his victims, but rather as a statement that he alone controlled his fate. Although Osama Ben Laden concealed himself for nearly a decade in that Afghan compound, he wasn’t intimidated from financing and directing terror by the likelihood of his own demise.
It’s my guess that, dominated by their frustrations and resentments toward society, neither Arrindell nor Gadson was capable of comprehending their ultimate fate; hence they gave in to their greedy hunger. My guess also is that John Lovell, being the respectable citizen he is, doesn’t view himself as quite the hero the author of that email sees him as being. My guess is that Lovell, however he may justify his own action that Wednesday night not so long ago, views that action with far more solemnity than he does with triumph.
Florida’s concealed weapon law may occasionally satisfy our legitimate outrage, but if we see it as an effective antidote to armed robbery, we’re nearly as foolish as both Arrindell and Gadson were.
No, I don’t “gotta love” Florida’s concealed weapons law. As a conscientious and informed citizen, I only “gotta” sadly acknowledge its existence!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, February 27, 2012
Monday, February 13, 2012
GO, MARY -- GO, GO, GO!!!
By Edwin Cooney
Due to the existence of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Mary Wolski got her job back the other day -- and a lot of people’s undies are in a bunch over it!
Mary Wolski was hired in the late 1990s as Erie, Pennsylvania’s first female firefighter. She had a spotless record until Thursday, December 28th, 2006 when she made a mood and drug-induced mistake.
Throughout the previous year, Mary had watched helplessly while her mother suffered from a staph infection. In the wake of her mother’s slow and painful death, Mary went into a severe depression and sought the support of a psychiatrist. Ultimately, she was taking six different drugs, some of which could bring on thoughts of suicide.
Then, on that fateful December day in 2006, Mary decided to end it. She traveled to her brother’s vacant home, filled the bathtub with old clothes and set them afire hoping that she would die of smoke inhalation. However, the heat was too intense so she doused the flames and then sought to cut her wrists. Subsequently, as the clothes were still smoldering in the tub, Mary’s colleagues at the Erie Fire Department became involved in her rescue.
Ultimately, the city of Erie fired Mary and Mary sued under the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Thus we have the debate:
Was Mary legitimately disabled? Does the ADA cover people with mental as well as physical disabilities? How significant was it that Mary, a firefighter, used fire to end her life? Might Mary’s rehiring bring about a dangerous degree of low morale in Erie’s fire department?
One of my very best friends lives in Erie and we’ll let him act as the judge for the lowest appeals court for the city of Erie and all right-thinking ADA supporters. This is what he wrote me.
OK, let's deal with Ms. Wolski's woes.
She had a spotless record as an Erie firefighter, a point for Mary.
She became depressed as a result of facing the long and difficult dying process of her mother, not Mary's doing, yet another point on Mary's side.
Indeed, she was under the care of a psychiatrist who had, one might argue, over medicated her, another point for Mary.
But as a firefighter, she set a fire, not a point for Mary. Granted, when she did so she was not in her right mind; and perhaps the fact that she had been a firefighter was part of the reason she chose fire, the destructiveness of which she had seen, first hand. But a firefighter who sets a fire, regardless of the accompanying circumstances, sacrifices his or her right to serve a community, putting out fires.
This kind of act is the unfortunate unlocking and opening of a hitherto nonexistent door; a door that once open, can be closed but can never be locked or eliminated. And the irreversible fact that the existence of such a door, having been brought to fruition by a servant whose responsibility it is to prevent the existence of such a door, should, in the view of this commentator, prevent that servant from serving in such a capacity wherein the opportunity is all too available to, once again, open that door.
The arrival of mental health challenges is almost always unfortunate. But the citizens of a community should not be put in a position wherein they might feel less than fully confident in the behavior of their public servants.
The death of a loved one is a trying time; but most individuals weather the process, and do so, as a rule, without abandoning a majority of their commitments to their chosen profession. A distraught firefighter who sets a fire is a troubled individual, one who deserves our empathy but not one who should be returned to the unspeakably difficult challenge of fighting fires in a community of more than 100,000 individuals. The Americans with Disabilities Act is a statute designed to level the playing field for members of our society who confront physical barriers, such barriers based on the presence of a physical limitation, not common throughout the rest of society. It is not, in my view, a statute which should allow an individual to return to an endeavor, the very nature of which the individual has transgressed, based on a temporary illness.
Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is herewith reversed with prejudice.
Respectfully submitted, Mr. Justice Chesterton
There are three questions before this court. The first is whether the city of Erie dismissed Mary Wolski with prejudice. Since the city fired rather than suspended her pending further investigation, the answer to that question is clearly in the affirmative.
The second question facing this court is Ms. Wolski’s condition at the time of the act. According to all testimony, Ms. Wolski was mentally and emotionally limited at the time she set the fire. The cause of her disability was physician proscribed drugs rather than the voluntary recreational abuse of drugs. As a person suffering from a disability, Mary Wolski had the right of protection and support under the ADA’s provisions that allow for overcoming barriers to employment. As this court sees it, the greatest barrier to forward progress is prejudice—and clearly, in this case, the city of Erie, Pennsylvania has shown prejudice throughout this unfortunate incident.
The third question before this court is the nature of Mary Wolski’s act. It must be observed that Ms. Wolski’s use of fire, which appears to particularly concern the good Justice Chesterton, was uniquely to her credit as opposed to her condemnation. Ms. Wolski’s use of fire was exceedingly skillful, limited and above all responsible. She set a fire in a bath tub, dousing it when she couldn’t use its effect. The fire was in a vacant house, controlled in its range and in its capacity to spread. No one was harmed nor was anyone intended to be harmed. Neither the city nor the district attorney chose at the time to indict her for the incident.
Ms. Wolski is now recovered. Her energy and determination for protecting the public is renewed. Released from the harsh medicines she was taking at the time of the incident, Ms. Mary Wolski is now fully capable of resuming her professional duties to which she has demonstrated unflagging dedication.
Accordingly, this court overturns the ruling of one Judge Chesterton with exceedingly vigorous prejudice!
Respectfully submitted,
Super Justice,
Edwin Cooney
Due to the existence of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Mary Wolski got her job back the other day -- and a lot of people’s undies are in a bunch over it!
Mary Wolski was hired in the late 1990s as Erie, Pennsylvania’s first female firefighter. She had a spotless record until Thursday, December 28th, 2006 when she made a mood and drug-induced mistake.
Throughout the previous year, Mary had watched helplessly while her mother suffered from a staph infection. In the wake of her mother’s slow and painful death, Mary went into a severe depression and sought the support of a psychiatrist. Ultimately, she was taking six different drugs, some of which could bring on thoughts of suicide.
Then, on that fateful December day in 2006, Mary decided to end it. She traveled to her brother’s vacant home, filled the bathtub with old clothes and set them afire hoping that she would die of smoke inhalation. However, the heat was too intense so she doused the flames and then sought to cut her wrists. Subsequently, as the clothes were still smoldering in the tub, Mary’s colleagues at the Erie Fire Department became involved in her rescue.
Ultimately, the city of Erie fired Mary and Mary sued under the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Thus we have the debate:
Was Mary legitimately disabled? Does the ADA cover people with mental as well as physical disabilities? How significant was it that Mary, a firefighter, used fire to end her life? Might Mary’s rehiring bring about a dangerous degree of low morale in Erie’s fire department?
One of my very best friends lives in Erie and we’ll let him act as the judge for the lowest appeals court for the city of Erie and all right-thinking ADA supporters. This is what he wrote me.
OK, let's deal with Ms. Wolski's woes.
She had a spotless record as an Erie firefighter, a point for Mary.
She became depressed as a result of facing the long and difficult dying process of her mother, not Mary's doing, yet another point on Mary's side.
Indeed, she was under the care of a psychiatrist who had, one might argue, over medicated her, another point for Mary.
But as a firefighter, she set a fire, not a point for Mary. Granted, when she did so she was not in her right mind; and perhaps the fact that she had been a firefighter was part of the reason she chose fire, the destructiveness of which she had seen, first hand. But a firefighter who sets a fire, regardless of the accompanying circumstances, sacrifices his or her right to serve a community, putting out fires.
This kind of act is the unfortunate unlocking and opening of a hitherto nonexistent door; a door that once open, can be closed but can never be locked or eliminated. And the irreversible fact that the existence of such a door, having been brought to fruition by a servant whose responsibility it is to prevent the existence of such a door, should, in the view of this commentator, prevent that servant from serving in such a capacity wherein the opportunity is all too available to, once again, open that door.
The arrival of mental health challenges is almost always unfortunate. But the citizens of a community should not be put in a position wherein they might feel less than fully confident in the behavior of their public servants.
The death of a loved one is a trying time; but most individuals weather the process, and do so, as a rule, without abandoning a majority of their commitments to their chosen profession. A distraught firefighter who sets a fire is a troubled individual, one who deserves our empathy but not one who should be returned to the unspeakably difficult challenge of fighting fires in a community of more than 100,000 individuals. The Americans with Disabilities Act is a statute designed to level the playing field for members of our society who confront physical barriers, such barriers based on the presence of a physical limitation, not common throughout the rest of society. It is not, in my view, a statute which should allow an individual to return to an endeavor, the very nature of which the individual has transgressed, based on a temporary illness.
Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is herewith reversed with prejudice.
Respectfully submitted, Mr. Justice Chesterton
There are three questions before this court. The first is whether the city of Erie dismissed Mary Wolski with prejudice. Since the city fired rather than suspended her pending further investigation, the answer to that question is clearly in the affirmative.
The second question facing this court is Ms. Wolski’s condition at the time of the act. According to all testimony, Ms. Wolski was mentally and emotionally limited at the time she set the fire. The cause of her disability was physician proscribed drugs rather than the voluntary recreational abuse of drugs. As a person suffering from a disability, Mary Wolski had the right of protection and support under the ADA’s provisions that allow for overcoming barriers to employment. As this court sees it, the greatest barrier to forward progress is prejudice—and clearly, in this case, the city of Erie, Pennsylvania has shown prejudice throughout this unfortunate incident.
The third question before this court is the nature of Mary Wolski’s act. It must be observed that Ms. Wolski’s use of fire, which appears to particularly concern the good Justice Chesterton, was uniquely to her credit as opposed to her condemnation. Ms. Wolski’s use of fire was exceedingly skillful, limited and above all responsible. She set a fire in a bath tub, dousing it when she couldn’t use its effect. The fire was in a vacant house, controlled in its range and in its capacity to spread. No one was harmed nor was anyone intended to be harmed. Neither the city nor the district attorney chose at the time to indict her for the incident.
Ms. Wolski is now recovered. Her energy and determination for protecting the public is renewed. Released from the harsh medicines she was taking at the time of the incident, Ms. Mary Wolski is now fully capable of resuming her professional duties to which she has demonstrated unflagging dedication.
Accordingly, this court overturns the ruling of one Judge Chesterton with exceedingly vigorous prejudice!
Respectfully submitted,
Super Justice,
Edwin Cooney
Monday, February 6, 2012
FOR WHOM SHOULD HE CARE?
By Edwin Cooney
I don’t know about you, but I wasn’t particularly surprised this week when I learned that the leading GOP presidential contender, Willard (Mitt) Romney has decided that he cares about neither the poor nor the rich since the rich can take care of themselves and the poor have a "safety net" under them. As for you in the middle class, the socio/political domain of workers who earn between $50,000 and $250,000, the handsome, articulate former Massachusetts governor has finally discovered you.
Up until now, you, the middle class, have been the strategic domain of President Obama who has kept his pledge not to increase taxes on you. Of course, the president’s opponents love to point out the obligations that “Obama Care” puts on everyone -- especially the middle class -- which they insist amounts to a tax increase. It is a reasonable argument when you’re being strictly political rather than responsibly objective. After all, a tax increase is more money taken for income taxes under the status quo, where healthcare is an additional service being offered which extends the status quo. Whatever position you take, the question remains: should the president especially care about classes of Americans?
Harry Truman, in had his usual straightforward way of looking at a president’s responsibilities, asserted that "the rich have the luxury of being able to pay lobbyists to come down to Washington to lobby Congress to meet their demands. There’s nothing wrong with them. As for the rest of America, the only lobbyist they have is the President of the United States. That’s his job -- to look out for the interests of the average person.”
The idea that the president should particularly care about anyone’s welfare is a relatively recent expectation.
In the early years of our republic, Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Madison held the view that a president should be politically “disinterested” in the outcome of public affairs as they directly affect the people’s lives. Recent scholars have suggested that one of the reasons Thomas Jefferson (our third president) fell out with Aaron Burr (our third vice president) was because Burr was more interested in serving people’s needs than he was in being the expected “disinterested” public servant. (Certainly his duel with Alexander Hamilton didn’t help, but it wasn’t the source of Jefferson’s unhappiness with Aaron Burr.) Presidential policies generally had to do with the broad interests of the young United States: our relations with Britain and France (George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison from 1794 through 1815), Indian affairs (Monroe through Cleveland from 1819 until 1887), and the Civil War (Lincoln through Hayes from 1861 through 1877). As late as the 1920s, Calvin Coolidge vetoed the McNary- Haugen Farm Relief Act designed to provide badly needed financial assistance particularly to western farmers who’d been plagued for several years by floods, droughts and soil erosion. Coolidge and many other Republicans saw direct assistance to farmers as “class legislation.” For the most part, government wasn’t seen as a legitimate tool on behalf of everyday working people until the New Deal. Thus, only since FDR has there been a debate about the legitimate role government should play in people’s lives.
Hence, the question: what should a perspective president care about?
During the course of one of his more folksy 1930s Fireside Chats, FDR put it this way:
“I like to think of our country as one home in which the interests of each member are bound up with the happiness of us all. We ought to know, by now, that the welfare of your family or mine cannot be bought at the sacrifice of our neighbor’s family; that our well-being depends, in the long run, on the well-being of our neighbors.”
FDR’s appeal brought about a solid political coalition of some farmers, laborers, students, Southern conservatives, northern and western liberals, and intellectuals that established moderate forward-looking government from the 1930s through the 1960s. Even Richard Nixon insisted that if a presidential candidate is to be successful, he must appeal to conservatives during the primaries but move to the left to accommodate the center during the general election (the opposite extreme to center in the Democratic party).
Hence, after months of appealing to the right, Governor Romney appears ready now to keel sharply to the center.
Will the GOP’s right wing allow him to do that? Will they interpret his move leftward as an effort to protect conservatism against the slings and arrows of the left until he can start practicing conservatism in the White House? Or will they see his move as a betrayal of conservative dogma to which all of the GOP candidates have paid such intense homage during this campaign?
Is it the poor, the rich or the middle class to which any successful presidential candidate must appeal? I say it’s the middle class. However, of the three class categories, the middle class is the most fickle and therefore the most dangerous. Their demands, resentments, and needs are so intertwined yet contradictory that they’re more easily offended than pleased—-and when offended they’re deadly!
Most of all, they possess more votes!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
I don’t know about you, but I wasn’t particularly surprised this week when I learned that the leading GOP presidential contender, Willard (Mitt) Romney has decided that he cares about neither the poor nor the rich since the rich can take care of themselves and the poor have a "safety net" under them. As for you in the middle class, the socio/political domain of workers who earn between $50,000 and $250,000, the handsome, articulate former Massachusetts governor has finally discovered you.
Up until now, you, the middle class, have been the strategic domain of President Obama who has kept his pledge not to increase taxes on you. Of course, the president’s opponents love to point out the obligations that “Obama Care” puts on everyone -- especially the middle class -- which they insist amounts to a tax increase. It is a reasonable argument when you’re being strictly political rather than responsibly objective. After all, a tax increase is more money taken for income taxes under the status quo, where healthcare is an additional service being offered which extends the status quo. Whatever position you take, the question remains: should the president especially care about classes of Americans?
Harry Truman, in had his usual straightforward way of looking at a president’s responsibilities, asserted that "the rich have the luxury of being able to pay lobbyists to come down to Washington to lobby Congress to meet their demands. There’s nothing wrong with them. As for the rest of America, the only lobbyist they have is the President of the United States. That’s his job -- to look out for the interests of the average person.”
The idea that the president should particularly care about anyone’s welfare is a relatively recent expectation.
In the early years of our republic, Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Madison held the view that a president should be politically “disinterested” in the outcome of public affairs as they directly affect the people’s lives. Recent scholars have suggested that one of the reasons Thomas Jefferson (our third president) fell out with Aaron Burr (our third vice president) was because Burr was more interested in serving people’s needs than he was in being the expected “disinterested” public servant. (Certainly his duel with Alexander Hamilton didn’t help, but it wasn’t the source of Jefferson’s unhappiness with Aaron Burr.) Presidential policies generally had to do with the broad interests of the young United States: our relations with Britain and France (George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison from 1794 through 1815), Indian affairs (Monroe through Cleveland from 1819 until 1887), and the Civil War (Lincoln through Hayes from 1861 through 1877). As late as the 1920s, Calvin Coolidge vetoed the McNary- Haugen Farm Relief Act designed to provide badly needed financial assistance particularly to western farmers who’d been plagued for several years by floods, droughts and soil erosion. Coolidge and many other Republicans saw direct assistance to farmers as “class legislation.” For the most part, government wasn’t seen as a legitimate tool on behalf of everyday working people until the New Deal. Thus, only since FDR has there been a debate about the legitimate role government should play in people’s lives.
Hence, the question: what should a perspective president care about?
During the course of one of his more folksy 1930s Fireside Chats, FDR put it this way:
“I like to think of our country as one home in which the interests of each member are bound up with the happiness of us all. We ought to know, by now, that the welfare of your family or mine cannot be bought at the sacrifice of our neighbor’s family; that our well-being depends, in the long run, on the well-being of our neighbors.”
FDR’s appeal brought about a solid political coalition of some farmers, laborers, students, Southern conservatives, northern and western liberals, and intellectuals that established moderate forward-looking government from the 1930s through the 1960s. Even Richard Nixon insisted that if a presidential candidate is to be successful, he must appeal to conservatives during the primaries but move to the left to accommodate the center during the general election (the opposite extreme to center in the Democratic party).
Hence, after months of appealing to the right, Governor Romney appears ready now to keel sharply to the center.
Will the GOP’s right wing allow him to do that? Will they interpret his move leftward as an effort to protect conservatism against the slings and arrows of the left until he can start practicing conservatism in the White House? Or will they see his move as a betrayal of conservative dogma to which all of the GOP candidates have paid such intense homage during this campaign?
Is it the poor, the rich or the middle class to which any successful presidential candidate must appeal? I say it’s the middle class. However, of the three class categories, the middle class is the most fickle and therefore the most dangerous. Their demands, resentments, and needs are so intertwined yet contradictory that they’re more easily offended than pleased—-and when offended they’re deadly!
Most of all, they possess more votes!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)