Rudy Guiliani knows a thing or three about the impact of terrorist attacks on a city – and a country.

The former New York mayor was on duty when the planes crashed into the World Trade Center on 9/11, launching the United States into a ground war in Afghanistan and, later, Iraq.

Appearing on MSNBC the other day in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing, Guiliani told commentator Chris Matthews that it’s important to keep this single attack in some perspective. He agreed with Boston officials’ decision to lock the city down for several hours while the bombing suspects were still at large. He then said that the nation needs to understand something about the relative safety it has enjoyed since the 9/11 attacks.

His point essentially was that two presidential administrations, the Bush administration and now the Obama administration, “have done a very good job” of heading off further terror attacks since that horrible September day in 2001.

The former mayor noted also that law enforcement agencies have been quite successful in catching terror suspects before they have done their evil deeds, with most of that detection occurring under the public radar. We’ll never know precisely how many plots have been foiled, Guiliani suggested.

As horrifying as the Boston bombing was and the horror it provoked in a great American city, this isn’t the time to panic and fear that the nation is under attack once again. The authorities in Boston did their job. Order is being restored daily.

Let’s always be alert, but let’s also get on with our lives.

I normally support the American Civil Liberties Union’s view of protecting people’s, um, civil liberties.

But the ACLU’s objection to the federal government’s waiving of Miranda rights to the surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing is off base.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/20/17840955-aclu-denying-miranda-rights-to-marathon-bombing-suspect-is-un-american?lite

The ACLU says every citizen deserves to be read his or her Miranda rights before being questioned by law enforcement authorities. The federal government, though, is invoking a long-standing exception to that rule by suggesting the existence of a potential future threat to public safety.

The Miranda rights stem from a 1966 Supreme Court ruling that gives criminal suspects “the right to remain silent,” as well as the right to legal counsel before being questioned by authorities. The bombing suspect has not yet been given that warning while he recovers from injuries he suffered while trying to elude capture after the Monday bombing along the Boston Marathon route.

I am confident that Dzokhar Tsarnaev – who only recently became a U.S. citizen – will get a fair trial if it goes that far; he still has the option of pleading guilty to the crime for which he will be charged.

My own view of this is that the government is reacting to what it perceives as a dangerous terrorist act. It has not yet determined whether there were accomplices to the plot the young man and his late older brother executed; Tsarneav’s brother, Tamarin, was killed by police in a fire fight.

So, until the government can determine beyond any doubt that these two young men acted on their own, it is within its right to do all it can to protect Americans from potential threats … such as the one perpetrated in Boston.

Allow me this moment to boast about a member of my family.

Our great-nephew Noah Pearson is a 10-year-old with a huge heart. He lives in Albany, Ore., and is an accomplished bowler. He also is orchestrating a fundraiser scheduled for April 28 to raise money for the victims of the Boston Marathon bombing.

http://democratherald.com/news/local/bowling-to-help-boston/article_11c14538-a97c-11e2-a0ff-0019bb2963f4.html

His hometown paper, the Albany Democrat-Herald, published a story about Noah’s effort. So far, according to the paper, Noah is getting a lot of attention – which is translating to a lot of tangible interest in his bowling tournament.

Others around the country no doubt are putting together programs to raise money to help the victims of the bombing. Noah’s intrepid spirit and his outward expression of compassion, though, simply blows me away. OK, I know what you’re thinking: Yeah, he’s family; of course he would blow you away. Well, I’m not the only one who is taken by Noah’s selflessness.

Bowling alley owner Roger Nyquist is, too.

According to the Democrat-Herald story, “He (Noah) sat down, looked me right in the eye and expressed his feelings about what had happened, and he had a plan, and he pitched it to me,” Nyquist recalled. “It’s neat to see somebody that young acknowledge what they’re feeling and in short order come up with a constructive activity.”

“Neat” isn’t quite the word I’d use. “Astonishing” is more to my liking.

Well done, Noah.

I occasionally get turned off by the shouts of flag-wavers who sometimes launch into overheated reactions to certain outcomes. Let me be clear: I’m an unapologetic flag-waver myself; we fly the flag at our house proudly to commemorate many patriotic holidays throughout the year. But occasionally the chants seem a bit out of place during some events.

The end of the Boston bombing manhunt, though, is a case where the cheers were more than warranted. They were directed at federal, state and local law enforcement authorities who somehow – miraculously, in my view – managed to take the second Boston Marathon bombing suspect into custody alive. Crowds cheered the police as they drove away from the scene of the climactic siege.

The 19-year-old suspect had been shot apparently in an earlier fire fight that killed his older brother. He was holed up in a boat parked in front of a home in Watertown, Mass. SWAT teams fired many rounds at the young man as he cowered in the boat.

Negotiators reportedly talked him into surrendering. Now the greater Boston area can start to return to some sense of normal living. The rest of us, far from the scene of the tragic events, can peel ourselves away from our TV sets and computer screens as well.

The police and FBI deserve the highest praise possible for capturing a live suspect accused of committing a heinous act this past Monday. The speed with which the FBI caught up with the two suspects after releasing their photos to the public on Thursday simply is breathtaking.

The FBI, along with Massachusetts and Boston-area police authorities now will be able to do the jobs for which they all are highly trained. They’ll let the young man regain his strength from the wounds he suffered and then they’ll pry some answers from him.

All Americans will await his response to a fundamental question, which no doubt will lead to other answers: Why?

The vote cast in the U.S. Senate that failed to approve increased background checks on gun buyers illustrates the power of money.

The National Rifle Association opposes the background check expansion. A huge majority of Americans, however, support it; most Democrats support it; most Republicans support it; some polls suggest that even a majority of families with NRA members support it.

But the Senate voted 54-46 in favor of expanding the background checks. However, because of Senate rules, the body needed 60 votes to send the measure to the House of Representatives. Texas’ two Republican senators, John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, were among the 46 “no” votes.

Thus, the bill has been put on ice for the time being.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/18/opinion/a-senate-in-the-gun-lobbys-grip.html?smid=fb-share&_r=1&

Senators are afraid of NRA, but as Gabrielle Giffords – the former Arizona congresswoman who was shot in the head at a political event in Tucson two years ago – has written, senators’ fear is nothing compared to the terror felt by the children caught in the gunfire in Newtown, Conn.

But the senators’ fear of the NRA apparently has far greater power than their constituents’ desire for them to act on a law that many Americans believe could prevent criminals and the mentally disturbed from purchasing a firearm.

And that is to the senators’ shame.

Rosemary Lehmberg has been prosecuting drunk drivers in Travis County for a full term in office.

Now she finds herself among the ranks of those she has sent to jail. How can she continue in her job? She can’t, as the Austin American-Statesman editorial linked here says.

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/opinion/arrest-should-end-lehmbergs-career-in-law-enforcem/nXQRg/

Lehmberg is in deep trouble with the law. She was caught driving drunk. Her vehicle reportedly was seen crossing into oncoming traffic. Her political career likely is over, although given what the country has seen with the budding comeback of former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, the end of the Travis County district attorney’s career isn’t exactly a sure thing.

It ought to be.

These matters of judicial integrity mean that those who prosecute people accused of crimes must be absolutely, utterly, completely beyond reproach. Rosemary Lehmberg’s has been damaged beyond repair. Every DUI case she or her office prosecutes from this day forward would be tainted for as long as Lehmberg serves as district attorney.

Public service demands a lot of those who seek to do it. Those who choose to serve the public must give the public the best of everything about them. Driving while under the influence of alcohol is a deal-breaker, especially for a prosecutor.

The second of two suspects in the Boston Marathon bombing attack is still on the lam. His brother is dead, apparently in what looks like a “suicide by cop” fire fight with police.

Is the younger brother coming in alive? My guess is that he’s going to die, probably quite soon.

Some of my friends and acquaintances don’t want to spend taxpayer money to hold the guy, try him, convict him and then carry out whatever sentence is handed down. I disagree with that strongly.

The authorities need to keep this guy alive to (1) determine whether he actually did the deed, which now appears likely he did, (2) determine whether he had help from other sources not yet known and (3) why in the world would someone described as a “sweetheart,” an honor student and all-round good guy would commit such a heinous act.

Police are combing the area in and around Boston as I write these words. I pray that someone gets to the young man and persuades him to surrender.

My fear, though, is that he’ll act the way almost all madmen do and that police will carry him out feet first from his final hiding place.

A good friend of mine has made a startling observation: April is a terrible month.

He shared it on a Facebook post. My friend noted the following events occurred during the month of April:

Abraham Lincoln was shot to death, Adolf Hitler was born, Franklin Roosevelt died, Timothy McVeigh blew up the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, the Branch Davidians burned to death in that fire in Waco, the two madmen killed all those people at Columbine High School in Colorado, the Titanic sank and now, the Boston Marathon bombing occurred and we witnessed that terrible explosion in West, Texas.

I can think of one good joyous that occurred during this month: My baby sister was born.

Still, my friend wants to skip April and head straight from Mardi Gras to Memorial Day.

I’m thinking he might be on to something.

U.S. House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas, is getting ants in his pants over the Boston bombing probe.

“Every day that it passes, it gets colder,” McCaul said of the investigation into who detonated the bomb on Monday that killed three people and injured dozens more at the Boston Marathon.

C’mon, Mr. Chairman, you ought to know these things take time.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/294779-lawmaker-fears-bomber-may-flee-country

McCaul is a former federal prosecutor who’s no doubt been involved in some tedious investigations. It’s only been three days since the bombs went off near the marathon’s finish line. Federal, state and local authorities are pleading for public patience as they comb through what looks like a mountain of solid evidence that’s going to lead – maybe soon – to an arrest.

Meanwhile, McCaul and a few others are wringing their hands that the feds haven’t announced an arrest yet.

Perhaps they ought to consider one theory being kicked around by knowledgeable observers, which is that the feds have put eyes on a subject or subjects already, have been tailing them and are just waiting and watching for the right moment to nab them. Just maybe they have someone targeted and perhaps they’re going to spring a big surprise on that individual when he or she least expects it.

New media outlets already have blown their coverage of the bombing aftermath, reporting erroneously that the FBI had made an arrest.

McCaul is afraid the suspect is going to flee the country. OK, well, Osama bin Laden was holed up half a world away once as well. He’s no longer with us.

The bombing perp has committed a terrible crime. I’m willing to give authorities the time they need to complete a thorough investigation before dropping the hammer.

Members of the Texas Legislature often pay their staff members with campaign money, a practice that some ethics gurus say poses a potential conflict of interest.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/04/18/campaign-funds-prop-lawmakers-capitol-operations/

So reports the Texas Tribune (see link).

I get where the ethicists are coming from.

I’ll say up front that I’ve never given a dime to any candidate for public office in Texas – or in Oregon, for that matter, where I was born and where I came of age. But if I had given money, I would expect a certain kind of return for my investment in the political process.

Supplementing staffers’ salaries with campaign cash isn’t something I’d want my candidate doing with my money. I would rather the candidate use that money to promote issues and enact legislation that I would want enacted, or use it to defeat legislation I don’t want put on the books.

State Sen. Kirk Watson, D-Austin, dips into his campaign chest regularly. He told the Tribune he wants to attract a top-quality staff. Offering more money is an attractive inducement, he said.

Maybe. But does he stipulate up front that’s one of the areas where he’ll spend contributors’ money when they give it? I’ll bet not.

But here is where the ethics argument begins to stick. Cal Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University, does see the campaign cash supplement as a potential conflict of interest by giving lobbyists and their employers added muscle. “It’s just another way in which the lobby runs the Capitol,” said Jillson told the Tribune. “They provide the lawmakers with walking around money and staff support.”

“Ethics in government,” sadly, has become almost something of an oxymoron in Texas. Isn’t there a way to clean up this mess?